1
0
The Danish government has rented dozens of places in a prison in Kosovo to transfer foreigners sentenced to deportation for various crimes. The project is mired in controversy: its feasibility is being questioned, while human rights activists are pointing out the – many – legal pitfalls.
At a cost of around €200 million, Denmark, one of Europe’s richest countries, has agreed that Kosovo, one of Europe’s poorest countries, will receive 300 foreigners sentenced to deportation. Denmark is seeking to alleviate overcrowding and staff shortages in its prisons by sending them more than 2,000 kilometres away. These prisoners have committed crimes in Denmark and will serve the rest of their sentences in Kosovo before being deported to their countries of origin.
Previously, the fanciful Danish idea of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda went the same way as one devised by the previous British government, both of which were scrapped. The crucial difference is that in the case of the agreement between Denmark and Kosovo, it concerns asylum seekers who already have a “deportation notice”.
Although there is a difference between the legal status of a so-called rejected ordinary asylum seeker and that of an asylum seeker who has been sentenced to deportation for a crime, the political process of the Kosovo agreement reveals some of the challenges that governments can face when trying to reach agreements with non-EU countries.
Although the Danish plans for the outsourcing of prison services have been in the making since 2021, they have not really made it into the foreign press until now. Those plans are now closer to materialising, after the Ministry of Justice signed a new cooperation agreement with the Kosovan government in February 2025 to send convicted immigrants to Gnjilane prison.
Critics of the measure consider it not only costly but also inhumane and fear that it will lead to abuse and discrimination against foreigners.
The plan may affect Danish citizens as well as foreign citizens and that they may be sent to serve their sentences in Kosovo, given the ambiguity of the treaty. The treaty establishes that “imprisonment will take place in accordance with Danish law and in accordance with Denmark’s international obligations”. It will have an initial duration of five years, with the possibility of an extension for another five. Likewise, a payment of €15 million will be made each year, plus €5 million to renovate the prison and adapt it to Danish regulations.
Barely 24 hours after the text was published, the Danish government announced that it would provide “a solid commitment to development in Kosovo focused on a green transition and human rights”, with an annual contribution of 45 million Danish kroner (about €6 million) from Denmark’s foreign aid budget. The government denied that there was any relationship between the two agreements.
Initially, the first prisoners to be deported to Kosovo were due to be sent last year, but these plans have been postponed several times. According to the new cooperation agreement, the refurbished prison will not be ready until 2027. The agreement was ratified shortly afterwards, but to date – four years after the scheme was first mooted and many millions of Danish kroner had already been sent to Pristina – it has not begun to be implemented.
Thus, the conditions that apply to those who are considered a “security risk” can be used in a discriminatory manner, regardless of whether the person has been previously convicted or not, and it gives deportations a punitive function that goes beyond the principles of criminal law.
Several civil society organisations have sounded the alarm about what happens to prisoners once they have served their sentences. According to the treaty, detainees must be sent to Denmark before being released, unless other agreements come about that allow the person to be sent directly to a third country. But the reality can be much more complex: in particular, there is a grey area for detainees awaiting deportation if the country of origin refuses to cooperate. Practice shows that vulnerable migrants deported from Denmark can end up in precarious situations.
Kosovo already has detention centres for immigrants without documentation or without a valid asylum application or who have not left the country within two weeks of their application being rejected, but who have not committed a crime. The centres are not designed for repatriation and people can be detained there for a year. After that year, the doors are simply opened, and the authorities claim that the case is resolved without offering any further help. Many of the migrants will resume their journey along the Balkan route or will be detained again if they are stopped by the police.
The Danish Ministry of Justice have tried to assure the public that the inmates of Gnjilane prison will not be released in Kosovo, as the treaty contemplates the possibility of deporting convicted foreigners directly to their country of origin once they have served their sentence”. It also introduces the obligation for the foreigner to leave Kosovo once the sentence has been served.
However, there will be cases in which, for various reasons, they cannot leave or be deported from Kosovo. Therefore, it may be necessary to return the foreigner to Denmark, either temporarily or permanently. For example, it may be a foreigner who does not want to cooperate with the departure and who cannot be forcibly deported. However, rules have been introduced to ensure that an expelled person can remain in preventive detention in Gnjilane prison if there is a real prospect that he or she can be deported to his or her country of origin.
Stenholm, E., Baccini , F. (2025). Denmark tackles prison overcrowding by sending the prisoners to Kosovo. Voxeurop. April 16, 2025.
