The dangerous precedent of offshore detention and its assault on fundamental rights
A troubling trend is emerging across Europe: wealthy nations paying poorer countries to detain people on their behalf. Denmark will send 300 convicted foreign prisoners to Kosovo starting in 2027. Italy has established detention centers in Albania for asylum seekers rescued at sea. These agreements, marketed as pragmatic solutions to overcrowding, represent a fundamental threat to the rule of law and human rights protections that define European justice.
For criminal defense lawyers and human rights advocates, these offshore detention schemes raise urgent questions: When a Danish prisoner is held in Kosovo under Danish law but Albanian guards, whose rights apply? When Italian judges hear cases via video link from Rome while detainees sit in Albanian facilities, has justice truly been served? The answer reveals a disturbing reality—these arrangements create jurisdictional black holes where accountability disappears and rights evaporate.
The Denmark-Kosovo Deal: Prisoners as Export Commodity
In May 2024, Kosovo’s Parliament ratified an agreement signed in 2021 with Denmark. The deal allows Denmark to lease 300 prison cells at Gjilan prison in Kosovo for an initial five-year period, with Denmark paying approximately €200 million over ten years—€15 million annually plus €5 million for renovation and modernization.
The arrangement targets foreign nationals convicted of crimes in Denmark who face deportation after serving their sentences. Denmark’s prison system exceeded 100% capacity in 2021, with more than 4,000 inmates and a 19% population increase since 2015. Rather than invest in domestic prison capacity, Denmark chose to export the problem.
The prisoners will serve sentences under Danish law and Danish standards, but in Kosovo—a country that is not a European Union member and has not ratified major international human rights conventions, though its constitution states that international human rights instruments apply directly. Danish authorities will manage the facility internally while Kosovar staff provide day-to-day operations.
The scale of financial incentive is staggering. The annual payment represents more than six times Kosovo’s entire justice ministry budget. Other European countries, including Austria, Belgium, and Sweden, have expressed interest in similar arrangements. Kosovo officials confirmed receiving “numerous requests from European countries for huge sums of money.”
The Italy-Albania Agreement: Asylum in Exile
Italy’s agreement with Albania, finalized in February 2024, operates on a different model but raises equally grave concerns. The deal allows Italy to transfer up to 36,000 asylum seekers annually to two detention centers in Albania—one near Shengjin port for initial processing, another at Gjader for those awaiting deportation.
Unlike the Denmark-Kosovo prisoner transfer, this involves asylum seekers—people who have not been convicted of crimes but are seeking international protection. Italian Coast Guard and Navy vessels rescue people in international waters, conduct rapid “vulnerability assessments” on board, and transfer those deemed “non-vulnerable” adult men from countries Italy considers “safe” to Albanian facilities.
The centers, fully funded and managed by Italy, will hold up to 3,000 people at any time. Italian judges will hear cases via video link from Rome. People granted asylum can enter Italy; those denied face repatriation.
The European Court of Justice dealt a significant blow to the scheme in 2024, ruling that Italy’s rules on designating countries as “safe” were incompatible with EU law. Italian courts repeatedly ordered migrants returned from Albania, finding their countries of origin unsafe. Nevertheless, Italy sent ships carrying asylum seekers to Albania in October 2024 and again in 2025, despite ongoing legal challenges.
The Jurisdictional Nightmare: Where Law Ends
These offshore arrangements create legal vacuums where fundamental protections collapse.
Consider the Denmark-Kosovo scenario: Danish law theoretically applies, but prisoners are thousands of kilometers from Danish courts. How does a prisoner exercise the right to judicial review when the nearest Danish court is in Copenhagen? Legal aid resources in Kosovo are limited. Danish lawyers face logistical and financial barriers to representing clients detained in Kosovo. The practical reality is that access to justice becomes illusory.
The situation in Albania is even more complex. Italian authorities claim Italian and EU law applies, but the European Commission initially stated the plan operates “outside EU law” before ambiguously saying it would “monitor implementation.” Albania’s Constitutional Court said Albanian law also applies in the detention centers. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights warned that “the lack of legal certainty will likely undermine crucial human rights safeguards.”
This jurisdictional ambiguity is not accidental—it is the point. By placing detention facilities outside EU territory while claiming domestic law applies, these countries attempt to maintain control without accountability. They seek the appearance of legality without the substance of rights protection.
The Human Rights Catastrophe
International bodies have sounded alarms. The UN Committee Against Torture urged Denmark to cancel its Kosovo plans. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that extraterritorial deals have “caused great suffering and harm.” The US State Department reported that Kosovo’s prisons face persistent problems with violence among prisoners, corruption, and inadequate treatment for inmates with mental disabilities.
In Albania, the UN Committee Against Torture expressed concerns about inmates’ access to healthcare and family visits. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture documented allegations of force used against prisoners and widespread corruption involving custodial staff. Yet these are the facilities where European nations plan to hold people under their jurisdiction.
The right to family life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, becomes meaningless when family members in Denmark or Italy cannot afford to travel to Kosovo or Albania. Video calls and supervised visits cannot substitute for the family contact essential to rehabilitation and human dignity.
The principle of non-refoulement—the prohibition on returning people to places where they face persecution—is systematically undermined. Vulnerability assessments conducted on overcrowded rescue vessels, in languages detainees may not understand, while people are traumatized and exhausted, cannot possibly meet international standards. The October 2024 transfer to Albania demonstrated this failure when four of sixteen migrants were immediately returned after being found vulnerable or underage—assessments that should have been made before transfer.
The Discrimination Embedded in Design
Both schemes explicitly or functionally target non-citizens. Denmark’s Kosovo arrangement applies only to foreign nationals facing deportation. Italy’s Albania centers exclude Italian citizens entirely.
This creates a two-tier justice system: citizens detained domestically with full access to courts, lawyers, and families; foreigners exported to facilities with theoretical rights but practical barriers to enforcement. Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. These arrangements violate that guarantee by design.
The racial and ethnic dimensions are impossible to ignore. The vast majority of those subject to these schemes will be people of color from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. European countries are literally exporting Brown and Black bodies to poorer countries to avoid dealing with them domestically.
The Economic Logic: Human Rights for Sale
The financial dimensions reveal the commodification of human beings. Kosovo, one of Europe’s poorest countries, receives payments that dwarf its justice budget in exchange for housing Denmark’s unwanted prisoners. Albania receives infrastructure investment and financial support for accepting Italy’s asylum seekers.
This creates perverse incentives. Countries with weaker rule of law and limited human rights infrastructure are incentivized to accept detained populations from wealthier nations. A race to the bottom becomes inevitable—which country will offer the cheapest detention, the least oversight, the fewest questions asked?
The European Commission must recognize these arrangements for what they are: attempts to outsource not just detention, but legal obligations. Responsibility cannot be delegated away. When Denmark detains someone in Kosovo, Danish obligations under the ECHR travel with that prisoner. When Italy holds asylum seekers in Albania, Italian obligations under international refugee law remain fully applicable.
The Precedent That Must Be Rejected
These arrangements represent the externalization of European migration and criminal justice challenges—shifting problems to third countries while avoiding accountability for rights violations. This precedent, if allowed to stand, will encourage further erosion of protections.
We have seen this pattern before. The UK attempted a similar scheme with Rwanda, ultimately abandoned after fierce legal challenges. Australia’s offshore detention system in Nauru and Manus Island became synonymous with human rights abuses, sexual violence, and mental health crises. The suffering documented in those facilities should serve as warning.
The Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, and European Union institutions must firmly reject offshore detention as incompatible with European values and legal obligations. National courts must scrutinize these arrangements and strike them down where they violate constitutional and human rights protections.
What Must Happen Now
The legal challenges have already begun. Italian courts have repeatedly ordered migrants returned from Albania. The European Court of Justice has ruled against Italy’s safe country designations. These judicial interventions must continue and intensify.
National parliaments must refuse ratification of such agreements. Civil society organizations must document abuses and bring strategic litigation. Defense lawyers must challenge transfers at every stage, demanding proof that rights will be protected.
The European Commission must launch infringement proceedings against member states that offshore detention responsibilities. The Commissioner for Human Rights must issue formal opinions condemning these practices. The Committee of Ministers must make clear that such arrangements are fundamentally incompatible with membership in the Council of Europe.
Justice Cannot Be Outsourced
When a person falls under the jurisdiction of a European state—whether through arrest, conviction, or rescue at sea—that state assumes legal obligations that cannot be delegated away. Those obligations include ensuring fair trial rights, humane detention conditions, access to lawyers and courts, respect for family life, and protection against discrimination.
Geographic distance does not diminish these duties. Paying another country to detain people on your behalf does not transfer your obligations. Claiming domestic law applies while rendering that law practically inaccessible is not compliance—it is evasion.
The detained person in Gjilan prison, held under Danish authority but thousands of kilometers from Danish courts, is entitled to the same protections as someone in Copenhagen. The asylum seeker in Albania, under Italian jurisdiction but outside EU territory, possesses the same rights as someone in Rome.
These offshore schemes attempt to create a legal fiction: that European nations can exercise power without accountability, maintain jurisdiction without responsibility, and detain people while evading the obligations detention creates.
European courts, human rights bodies, and civil society must reject this fiction. Justice cannot be exported. Rights cannot be outsourced. Accountability cannot be delegated to weaker states with financial incentives to look the other way.
Before we allow this precedent to take root, we must ask: Is this the Europe we want to build? One where the wealthy pay the poor to hide their inconvenient populations? Where rights depend on nationality and geographic location? Where “out of sight, out of mind” becomes official policy?
The detained individuals in Kosovo and Albania have the answer. And they are watching to see if European justice is more than words on paper.
About the Author
Alexis Anagnostakis is a criminal defense lawyer with 25 years of experience practicing in Athens, Greece, and serves as Human Rights Officer for the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA). He specializes in extradition cases, immigration law, digital rights, and international human rights advocacy.
Need Legal Counsel on Extradition or Immigration Cases?
For consultations on cases involving cross-border detention, deportation challenges, or human rights violations, contact our firm.
Key Topics: Offshore Detention | Denmark Kosovo Prison | Italy Albania Migration | Extradition Law | Asylum Rights | ECHR | Human Rights Violations | Criminal Defense | Immigration Law | Refugee Rights
