EU-backed investments in prisons and detention centres across the Western Balkans are raising eyebrows. Critics warn that they may be laying the groundwork for controversial ‘return hubs’ beyond EU borders — a move that could shift migration management outside the bloc and put human rights at risk.
According to a position paper led by Collective Aid, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, both EU candidate countries, may face political incentives to facilitate the EU in its wish for a so called return hubs. They are facilities where rejected asylum seekers would be sent before deportation.
The idea of placing return hubs outside EU borders is highly controversial and raises fundamental legal and ethical questions. There are particular concerns about how deportees would be treated in countries with weaker human rights protections than those within the EU.
New prison in Sarajevo
Already a few months ago, the first signs appeared of renovating detention centres in the Balkans or opening new ones. In Sarajevo, a facility for 55 inmates was inaugurated last July as part of a wider prison complex expansion.
The site covers 4,000 m² out of a total of 12,000 new, energy-efficient facilities. It is equipped with advanced security systems and aims to eventually increase capacity to 220 inmates and 40 convicted prisoners. Vedran Škobić, Minister of Justice of the Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina—one of the two entities of the country—assured that the facility’s conditions “are in line with European standards”.
You might be interested
The broader project of the maximum-security prison was launched in 2020. The funding comes from Federation government—approximately 11 million convertible marks (€5.6 million)—and from the EU through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) — 9 million marks (€4.6 million).
Support of EU standards
IPA framework supports candidate countries in aligning with EU rules and standards across areas such as governance, the rule of law and human rights. It covers Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Türkiye.
However, it also does not exclude the possibility that the facilities funded throught IPA could serve other purposes. Such as becoming the return hubs under the new Migration and Asylum Pact.
At the same time, European Commission reports on enlargement highlight persistent shortcomings. Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, has been urged to “improve detention facilities, prison regimes and reintegration programmes”. It has also been pressed to guarantee immediate access to a lawyer in police detention. Advocacy groups such as the Global Detention Project have called for an end to the detention of children — an issue that has gained renewed attention in the context of the EU’s new Migration and Asylum Pact.
Fundamental rights at risk
Civil society organisations see using non-EU countries in the Western Balkans for return hubs as circumventing human rights obligations. They warn that EU candidate countries can se it as a tactics to leverage the difficult accession process.
The EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) has also warned of the risks associated with return hubs. It recommends that any agreements with third countries include robust and independent monitoring mechanisms covering all stages of the process — from transfer to detention and eventual return. Such oversight, the agency argues, should go beyond the act of deportation itself.
As the EU tightens migration policy, the question is no longer just how returns are conducted, but where responsibility lies. The Balkans candidate countries are drawing closer to the bloc, but still operate under different standards of protection. Expanding returns beyond the EU may bring benefits, but risks shifting accountability to systems less able to guarantee fundamental rights.
