Brussels – Finally, the first EU list of safe countries of origin promised by Ursula von der Leyen has arrived. For now, there are Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia. Little does it matter that, by summer, the Court of Justice of the European Union may revise the parameters by which a country can be considered effectively safe. The European Commission is dragging its feet and serving an assist to Italy, which had added Egypt and Bangladesh to its national list in order to be able to transfer migrants from those countries to Albania and assess their asylum applications with accelerated procedures.
Brussels’ proposal goes further, as it proposes to bring forward two controversial rules envisaged by the Migration and Asylum Pact (which will come into force in June 2026): first, that the processing of applications can be sped up for all nationals from countries whose asylum application recognition rate is less than 20 per cent, and second, that member states can designate as safe third countries and countries of origin even those that are not safe for all or any part of their territory.
Hence, potentially far more than the seven (plus EU accession candidates) named on the EU list. Suffice it to say that for none of the countries chosen by the European Commission does the recognition rate of asylum claims exceed 5 per cent. For none of them has the principle been applied that specific regions or categories of clearly identifiable individuals may be excluded in order to designate them safe.
The stated goal is “to help member states deal more quickly and efficiently with asylum claims of applicants which may be unfounded.” In essence, if member states and the European Parliament approve the European Commission’s proposal, the EU list would become binding, but at the same time would not prevent member countries from drawing up more lists (Italy already has 19 countries). Member countries would be required to carry out expedited or border procedures for all nationals from states specified by Brussels. Asylum claims would be assessed in a maximum period of three months, not six, and migrants would be detained for the entire procedure period.
“The asylum claim will be assessed on its merits, and the conclusion can always be appealed,” a senior European Commission official clarified. But it is clear that the obligation to conduct accelerated procedures for all risks colliding with the principle of individual examination of asylum claims, “regardless of whether a person comes from a safe country of origin or not.” And “it will have to take into account the adequate capacity of member countries,” stresses a senior EU official.
According to the definition given in the current European directive, a country is considered a safe country of origin “if, on the basis of legal status, law enforcement within a democratic system, and the general political situation, it can be demonstrated that there is generally and consistently no persecution (…), no torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and no danger from indiscriminate violence in situations of internal or international armed conflict.”
To choose the top seven countries on the list—a “dynamic” list that will be subject to additions or deletions over time—Brussels made sure they were countries from which a “significant flow of irregular migrants” arrives, but whose citizens are simultaneously granted less than 5 per cent of asylum claims. The Commission said the list was based on analysis by the EU Asylum Agency and reports by UNHCR, the European External Action Service, civil society organisations and international media.
As for candidate countries, the European Commission considers them all to be safe as long as there is no war on their territory, no EU sanctions have been imposed, and the asylum recognition rate is no higher than 20 per cent. If Ukraine clearly cannot be considered a safe country of origin, Turkey, for example, a candidate for membership for years, but whose path has been effectively frozen, can.
On the coexistence of the national and European lists, the Commission argues that member countries will be able to continue to treat as safe other countries “on the basis of an assessment in line with European laws.” The very one that, according to the attorney general of the EU Court of Justice, Rome did not provide in the decree-law by which it added several countries to the national list, and on which the court is called to rule regarding an appeal by two Bengali citizens transferred by Italian authorities to Albania and subjected to border procedures. A senior official of the EU executive commented: “Obviously, we are aware of the opinion of the Advocate General. At the same time, I would like to stress that this proposal is a policy initiative that has already been announced in several cases.”
Should a country be removed from the EU list, member states could continue to treat it as such, and the Commission will not raise objections within 2 years after removal. Now the ball passes to the co-legislators, the EU Parliament and the EU Council. “I do not exclude that they might be tempted to add other countries to the list,” a source admits, “but without an assessment by the European Commission, it would not be possible. What member countries and MEPs could do, however, is to ask to exclude some of them or to revise their designation criteria.
According to Cecilia Strada, MEP for the Democratic Party, “the proposal for a list of safe countries put forward by the Commission seems more like an attempt to force the European legal framework to support this or that member state in its domestic policies. Or, even worse, an attempt to create media and political pressure on the EU Court of Justice ahead of its ruling expected in the coming weeks.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
