On May 15, 2026, meeting in Chișinău (Republic of Moldova), the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Declaration intended to serve as a milestone in the European debate on the relationship between migration policies, state sovereignty, and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system.

The Declaration, signed by the 46 Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member states, — strongly reaffirms the unconditional obligation of states to comply with the judgments of the ECtHR (paragraph 15), reaffirms the Court’s independence as the authoritative interpreter of the Convention (paragraph 12), and recalls that the principle of “margin of appreciation” does not constitute a derogation from Convention obligations, but rather an instrument already established in Strasbourg case law.

On the issue of migration—at the heart of the political debate in recent years—the Declaration acknowledges the pressures facing States and recognizes that some of them are exploring new approaches, including the externalization of international protection procedures and so-called “return hubs” in third countries (paragraph 46). However, the Declaration is explicit in reaffirming that such procedures remain subject to full compliance with the Convention obligations arising from the ECHR (paragraph 45). Furthermore, it is the States themselves that are asking the ECtHR to provide interpretative guidance on the matter (paragraph 40): a passage that unequivocally leaves the final say on the issue of the compatibility with the Convention of any “outsourcing” of migration flows in the hands of the judges in Strasbourg.

In Italy, the Declaration immediately drew media attention from the government. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni posted on social media, “Council of Europe gives green light to easier deportations,” stating that the Declaration “recognizes the legitimacy” of return hubs in third countries, citing the Italian-Albanian model as now a “principle shared among the 46 member states.”

The Prime Minister’s interpretation, however, does not appear to be fully supported by the original text of the Declaration. Paragraph 46 merely notes that some states have considered such solutions: a descriptive observation, certainly not a normative endorsement. The aforementioned point 45 of the Declaration, omitted in the Prime Minister’s commentary, in fact makes any migration policy contingent upon compliance with the Convention: precisely the constraint on which the Albanian model has encountered significant obstacles in Italian courts. And point 40 clarifies that it is the States that ask the Court to guide them—not the other way around.

In conclusion, the Chișinău Declaration has the merit of honestly capturing the real tensions within the ECHR system, offering States more structured spaces for dialogue. But its underlying logic remains defensive of the Convention’s architecture as it has been known to date: the Strasbourg Court remains sovereign in its interpretive function, and no national “innovation” can escape its scrutiny.