Fernando Grande-Marlaska ruled out on June 4 that Spain would use future migrant return centers in third countries, a tool that the European Union (EU) is working to facilitate the return of irregular migrants who remain on European soil without the right to do so. Although the regulation has not yet been approved, there are already EU member states working on their national regulations with the Return Regulation of the EU, such as Germany or Greece. Spain, for its part, could be one of them, but the morality of Fernando Grande-Marlaska hinders progress in European crisis migration management policy.
However, if Spain were to act like its European counterparts, the migration crisis in Ceuta would be managed differently. It should be noted that while return centers have their limits, as having them would not immediately stop a migratory human avalanche, the truth is that, a posteriori, it would facilitate the management of migrants. This would be reflected in the number of migrants who would remain in Ceuta territory: as of August 25, they are estimated to be 5,000 people.
What are return centers
The so-called "return hubs" are facilities located outside the European Union that allow for the reception of nationals from third countries without the right to remain on European soil and who are subject to a return decision. That is to say, they are centers located in European countries, but not in the EU, such as Albania or Kosovo, or in other continents, that serve to accommodate unwanted irregular migrants from the perspective of EU member states.
However, for these return centers to be operational, agreements must first be signed between the EU member state and the third state that establish minimum requirements since, for example, they cannot violate certain human rights or the principle of non-refoulement. In this sense, the EU Return Regulation establishes the minimum criteria for future candidate states, among which it is established that the state must be minimally considered safe, so it would not be valid to return migrants to Sudan, for example. Thus, the country that receives the migrants would function either as a final destination or as an intermediate point for return to the country of origin.
...The agreement that both parties would sign would have to include an independent supervision mechanism, the responsibilities of each party, and the consequences of possible breaches. However, due to Marlaska's past statements made on June 4, Spain will not have a strategic partner to host return centers for irregular migrants.
A solution for blocked returns
The new European Return Regulation has been acclaimed among some member states as it aims to correct one of the weak points of the community migration policy. According to the European Parliament Research Service, in 2025 only 28% of the return decisions issued in the EU and associated countries were executed, despite being the highest percentage in the last decade.
One of the causes is the lack of cooperation from some member states to identify their nationals, provide travel documents, or accept their readmission. European authorities can determine that a person must leave the community territory, but they do not always manage to execute that decision, so return centers would provide other solutions. For example, if the country of origin blocks a return, a member state could transfer the person to another territory with which it has previously closed an agreement.
Thus, the main advantage of the centers is to prevent the lack of cooperation from the country of origin from completely paralyzing the case, in addition to allowing several European partners to share facilities, security, legal assistance, healthcare, and operating costs.
How the management of the crisis in Ceuta would change with return centers
All are assumptions, as fiction will never replace truth, but if there were migrant detention centers, possibly the migration crisis in Ceuta would have a different aspect. The massive entry of migrants would have been inevitably the same, but the subsequent management of the crisis would be more efficient in terms of time and resources, in addition to not posing problems due to unsanitary conditions in the streets of Ceuta.
In this sense, the centers would expand, in the medium term, the catalog of available destinations to execute certain return orders and their main utility would appear when a person had no right to remain in Spain, but their country of origin delayed the documentation, rejected readmission, or temporarily prevented the execution of the expulsion.
Under no circumstances are the return centers applicable for unaccompanied migrant minors, so these would come under the guardianship of the Government of Spain.
Marlaska's reasons for dismissing them
The Minister of the Interior conveyed on June 4 to his European counterparts Spain's "firm" opposition. Marlaska alleged "serious doubts" about the legality and proportionality of the mechanism, especially when the person is sent to a country with which they have no ties. Likewise, Marlaska has also questioned Spain's ability to control the conditions of stay, legal assistance, or detention when the person is already outside the European Union.
The second objection concerns the timeframes for deprivation of liberty. In this regard, the European text contemplates, under certain conditions and after an individual assessment, detentions of up to 24 months. New periods could be added that, in general, would not exceed another six months if circumstances arose that allowed for the execution of the return. But, in any case, for individuals considered a risk to security, special rules subject to judicial control would be contemplated.
Beyond the moral criticisms made by Marlaska, Spain also raises economic doubts. This is because maintaining these centers usually requires funding from the sending state to maintain the facilities, security, healthcare, lawyers, supervision, and compensation to the receiving country. The European Parliament's research service points out that comparable experiences have proven costly, have affected a small number of people, and can generate abundant litigation.
Finally, Marlaska argues that asking certain countries to receive migrants of other nationalities could deteriorate the bilateral relations used to control departures and negotiate readmissions. Spain bets on cooperation with the countries of origin and transit, while rejecting the outsourcing of detention in territories with no direct relation to the affected person.
The other side of the coin of being European
And being European is not summarized in adopting a single type of thought, identity, culture, etc. This is reflected, regarding the return centers for example, in countries like Austria, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, and Germany, which have promoted a working group on return centers. The objective is to identify collaborating countries, define the legal conditions, and design formulas that can be implemented when the European regulation comes into force.
Furthermore, the Dutch government has also expressly included return and transit centers in its migration policy program with the aim of negotiating preferably together with the EU or with other like-minded States, and thus demanding that the agreements prevent transferring a person to a territory where they may suffer persecution.
This does not mean that Germany or the Netherlands already have operational facilities, but rather that they are better prepared to use the new European tool, seek third countries, and convert political support for the mechanism into concrete agreements.
The future: Spain will have to apply the regulation
As is well known, European regulations are mandatory for member States. The new European Return Regulation has come to stay and member States must incorporate it when it is finally published. Once done, the Regulation will replace the European Return Directive of 2008 and will be directly applicable in Spain. It will not require a national transposition law, which implies that Spain is obliged to comply with the common provisions on return resolutions, cooperation, guarantees, information exchange, and recognition of decisions.
However, and for the benefit of the Government of Spain, it should be clarified that the new regulation authorizes States to create return centers, but does not impose on them to do so. Therefore, Spain may maintain its refusal, not sign agreements with third countries, and not transfer people to facilities promoted by other States, although such a position could be modified by a subsequent Government.