The EU\u2019s recent proposals in the area of migration and asylum risk seriously undermining people\u2019s access to fair and full asylum procedures in Europe. The European Commission’s recent initiatives appear to be interconnected components of a broader strategy to externalise the bloc’s migration management – these include its proposed revision to EU return or deportation rules put forward in March 2025, its April 2025 EU list of ‘safe countries of origin’ and a revision to the ‘safe third country’ concept in May 2025. With these measures the EU seems to be seeking to further shift responsibility for refugee protection onto countries outside its borders and sidestep legal obligations under the Refugee Convention and EU law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
EU List of \u2018Safe Countries of Origin\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposed EU list of ‘safe countries of origin’ deems certain countries, from which 20% or fewer applicants are granted international protection in the EU, to be safe. However, the fact that up to 20% of those applying for international protection from these countries are recognised as refugees indicates that these places are in fact not <\/em>safe for all. Despite this, the proposed EU list allows for accelerated processing of asylum claims from nationals (or stateless individuals) of these countries under the assumption that their claims are likely to be unfounded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As an aspect of the right to seek asylum, anyone who applies for protection in the EU should have their claim assessed individually and on its own merits – regardless of where they are fleeing from. The application of the \u2019safe country of origin\u2019 rule undermines the individual assessment of asylum claims and increases the risk of individual vulnerabilities and protection needs being missed \u2013 including those of people with specific needs or from marginalised communities by allowing for accelerated processing of asylum claims under the assumption that their claims are likely to be unfounded. Procedural safeguards are also limited in these accelerated procedures \u2013 meaning, for instance, shortened timeframes and limited access by the claimant to legal and other support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposed \u2018safe countries of origin\u2019 are Egypt, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Kosovo, and Morocco, as well as, in principle, EU candidate countries. This is deeply concerning given that the Explanatory Memorandum itself lists risks of violations of human rights in all countries listed in the Commission\u2019s proposal, ranging from widespread gender-based violence to severe threats human rights defenders face. As human rights organisations have noted, for example, Tunisian authorities intensified repression of political opposition in 2024 by carrying out mass arrests, imprisoning journalists, and targeting civil society groups. In Egypt, many peaceful critics and members of religious minorities face harassment and lengthy detention in dire conditions. Colombia remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for individuals at risk of targeted violence, especially from non-state armed groups. Former combatants who signed the Peace Agreement, human rights defenders, community leaders, environmental activists, and investigative journalists are frequently subjected to threats, attacks, persecution and killings. In addition, LGBTIQ+ individuals and ethnic minorities, including Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities, face widespread discrimination, violence, and forced displacement. In <\/p>\n\n\n\n Morocco, journalists, activists, and perceived government critics face harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and unfair trials. Other groups such as Sahrawi activists and LGBT+ individuals are also subjected to discrimination, surveillance, and prosecution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This list of vulnerable groups in these third countries is non-exhaustive, and national asylum agencies across EU member states confirm that people from those countries remain in need of international protection, as their recognition rate has not lowered to zero. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Expansion of the \u2018safe third country\u2019 concept <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A separate legislative proposal – the review of the \u2018safe third country\u2019 concept in the Asylum Procedures Regulation (which was introduced as part of the Migration and Asylum Pact and enters into force in 2026) – seeks to remove the current requirement for a personal connection between the asylum seeker and a third country where it is deemed they should have sought protection in the first place. Currently, the Regulation provides that Member States can avoid examining an asylum application on its merits only if it can be proven that the applicant has a meaningful connection to a \u2019safe third country\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Commission’s new proposal would effectively remove this mandatory criterion, paving the way for asylum seekers being sent to a country they have only briefly travelled through, or indeed have never set foot in and may have no link to whatsoever. Mere transit, or the existence of an agreement or \u2018arrangement\u2019 between an EU Member State and a third country would be considered sufficient grounds for an asylum seeker to be transferred to a country outside the EU. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Commission proposal would also lead to the removal of the automatic suspensive effect of appeal in these cases. Therefore, asylum seekers could be forcibly transferred to a third country they have no link to before their appeal has been heard. This increases the risk of (chain) refoulement <\/em>or of asylum seekers being unable to access their rights in line with the 1951 Refugee Convention and international human rights law. <\/em>Dismantling this connection criterion is seemingly intended to increase the use of the \u2018safe third country\u2019 concept and further shift responsibility to third countries. This contradicts and harms the functioning of the EU asylum system and the global protection regime as whole. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Externalisation as the cross-cutting policy objective <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU list of \u2018safe countries of origin\u2019 and proposed expanded use of \u2018safe third country\u2019 rules are clearly connected to the recently proposed Common European System for Returns. The proposed Return Regulation of March 2025 aims to streamline and expedite the return process for non-EU nationals denied permission to remain on EU territory. It includes a legal framework for establishing so-called \u2019return hubs\u2019 in third countries, where individuals issued final return orders may be forcibly sent and detained, based on agreements between a Member State and a third country. Human rights and humanitarian organisations have warned that these \u2018return hubs\u2019 risk resulting in human rights violations, arbitrary automatic detention, and both direct and indirect refoulement<\/em>. The return proposal also vastly expands the number of countries to which returns can be carried out – including to the aforementioned \u2018safe third countries\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These different Commission proposals, taken together, reflect the EU\u2019s determination to further externalise its asylum and migration policy. This comes at the expense of focusing efforts on strengthening the capacity of national asylum systems, offering protection and welcoming people with dignity and respect. The EU\u2019s current approach undermines the rights of asylum seekers and migrants, and places undue responsibilities on third countries, some of which may already be hosting large communities of refugees and migrants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lessons have not been learned from existing migration agreements with non-EU countries, often those with poor human rights records, which have proved costly, cruel and counterproductive \u2013 such as with T\u00fcrkiye, Libya, Tunisia or Egypt. Relying on third countries to take on Europe\u2019s protection obligations makes Europe dependent on non-EU states, enabling third countries to leverage migration in line with their own political agenda. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU\u2019s inability to effectively monitor and enforce human rights in partnerships with third countries has become increasingly evident, as reports of violations continue to mount. Shirking responsibility in this way has resulted in many thousands of people being exposed to violence, abuse, exploitation, and death. Rather than promoting solidarity, these policies appear to signal a retreat from Europe\u2019s commitment to asylum and risk contributing to a worrying erosion of refugee protection globally. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The undersigned organisations call on the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, and member states at national level to uphold their obligations under EU and international law and to firmly reject any attempts to weaken protection for asylum seekers at and within EU borders as well as in cooperation with third countries on asylum and migration. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Organisations signing on: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU\u2019s recent proposals in the area of migration and asylum risk seriously undermining people\u2019s access to fair and full asylum procedures in Europe. The European Commission’s recent initiatives appear to be interconnected components of a broader strategy to externalise the bloc’s migration management – these include its proposed revision to EU return or deportation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":9955,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-press-releases"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11395"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11395\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11404,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11395\/revisions\/11404"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gcr.gr\/el\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n