On June 4th, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Joined Cases C-722/23 and C-91/24, Rugu and Aucroix, concerning two European Arrest Warrants issued by Romania and Greece for the enforcement of custodial sentences. Belgian appeal courts had refused surrender of the suspects, because detention conditions in those Member States could expose the requested persons to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Belgian Court of Cassation asked whether Belgium could, or had to, enforce the sentences itself. The CJEU held that the executing Member State must take all possible steps to ensure enforcement on its own territory, including by using the EU instrument on mutual recognition of custodial sentences, so that a rights-based refusal does not create impunity.
The ruling does not directly concern asylum, migration or returns. Its relevance lies in the transfer logic running through EU justice and migration policy. Member States may rely on mutual recognition and cross-border transfers, but not where fundamental-rights risks remain unresolved. The Court’s approach is corrective, it does not end cooperation but turns refusal into an obligation to find a lawful substitute.
That logic is relevant to the EU’s new return hubs in third countries and safe third-country arrangements. The Return Regulation deal of June 1st would allow Member States to establish return hubs for persons with no right to stay, provided agreements respect international human-rights standards and non-refoulement. Safe third-country reforms similarly expand the possibility of treating asylum claims as inadmissible where protection can be examined in a non-EU country under an agreement or arrangement.
The lesson from Rugu and Aucroix is that the CJEU may tolerate transfer-based governance, but not accountability gaps. For external hubs, the legal pressure point will be not only whether a third country is formally labelled safe, but who must act when detention, onward removal or reception conditions become unsafe. Academic analysis already stress valid individual decisions, judicial review, Charter compliance and independent monitoring. Concludingly, externalisation may move people outside EU territory; it is less likely to move responsibility outside EU judicial scrutiny.
Sources
- https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-06/cp260078en.pdf
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2002/584/oj/eng
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/909/oj/eng
- https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/01/council-and-parliament-reach-deal-on-returns-of-illegally-staying-third-country-nationals/
- https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/18/safe-third-country-council-and-european-parliament-agree-on-new-eu-law-restricting-admissibility-of-asylum-claims/
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-025-00854-8
