Brussels, the revision of the concept of safe third countries is another blow to the EU asylum system

Brussels – The European Commission is continuing to dismantle the asylum system as we have known it for the last twenty years. After supporting the ‘Albanian model’ of externalising international protection requests and approving repatriation centres outside the EU, today (20 May) Brussels added another piece to the puzzle by opening the door to deporting asylum seekers to third countries with which they have no ties. At the same time, it limited the suspensive effects of appeals against transfers.

The revision of the concept of safe third country was provided for in the Migration and Asylum Pact by June 2025. But rather than a revision, the European Commission is proposing a radical overhaul to make it easier for Member States to apply it in order to speed up—and reject—asylum applications. In essence, the EU executive suggests removing the obligation for national asylum authorities to prove the existence of a link between the applicant and the safe third country to which they wish to transfer them. According to the new Brussels approach, transit through a safe third country during the journey to reach the EU would be sufficient grounds for denying protection.

And even if the unfortunate person had only crossed unsafe countries, they could be deported—unless they are an unaccompanied minor—to any other non-EU country with which an agreement or arrangement has been signed, provided that the third country meets a set of conditions that qualify it as safe. Although the European Commission cites as an example the agreement whereby Turkey hosts 3.5 million Syrian citizens on its territory, we are faced with the ‘Rwanda model’, the agreement whereby the United Kingdom wants to deport asylum seekers of any nationality to Rwanda, 6,400 km from London and who knows how far from their country of origin, mistreated by the same European institutions for obvious violations of the rights of migrants. 400 km from London and who knows how far from their country of origin, mistreated by the same European institutions for obvious violations of migrants’ rights. “The Migration Pact will not open the door to the British Rwanda model in Europe,” had said former EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson just over a year ago.

However, her replacement by Austrian Magnus Brunner and a new political centre of gravity in Brussels that has shifted decisively to the right have disavowed her. “The revised concept of a safe third country is another tool that helps Member States process asylum applications more efficiently, in full respect of the EU’s fundamental values and rights,” Brunner said—in a note, because the commissioner did not present the details of the proposal in person, as is customary. The task fell to his spokesman, Markus Lammert, who reiterated that “the proposal is accompanied by solid warranties” and is nothing more than “a targeted amendment to an existing provision in Union law“.

The key that has allowed the EU to proceed with the removal of the link criterion in the application of the concept of safe third country is that this criterion is not provided for in international law. It is therefore not mandatory under international law to establish a link between the asylum seeker and the safe third country to which they are to be transferred. Until now, it was for the EU: the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR), part of the Migration and Asylum Pact, allows transfers “only if there is a link between the applicant and the third country in question on the basis of which it would be reasonable for him or her to go to that country”. In particular, if they have previously stayed there for a long period or if family members reside there.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has emphasised the importance of a ‘significant link’, to be verified through factors such as the duration and nature of any previous stays, as well as family or other close ties. The EU Court of Justice also ruled on this issue in a 2018 judgment, establishing that a short stay in a safe third country is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a link with that country.

But the European Commission wants to make a clean sweep, so as to increase the number of applicants to whom the concept of safe third country could be applied and at the same time expand “the pool of third countries with which to cooperate in its application”. As stated in the Brussels proposal, “this would reduce the administrative burden and increase the efficiency of the processing of asylum applications“. Third countries with which agreements are to be concluded should meet a number of conditions—such as protection against refoulement, the absence of a real risk of serious harm and threats to life and liberty on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion—and guarantee asylum seekers protection, access to healthcare, education and social benefits. Member States should inform the EU executive before concluding agreements, “to enable the Commission to verify that the criteria are fully met”.

Anticipating a likely surge in appeals against forced transfers, Brussels has put another crackdown on the table. It has suggested removing the automatic suspensive effect of appeals in order to “help reduce procedural delays in the application of the concept of safe third countries and prevent potential abuse of the possibilities for appeal by applicants”. But at the same time, as pointed out by Democratic Party MEP Cecilia Strada, this means that “migrants who appeal against the rejection of their asylum application will risk being expelled before the final decision is made”. The European Commission itself, in its proposal, acknowledged the concerns expressed by the UNHCR and civil society organisations in this regard. The latter “have generally opposed the revision of the concept of safe third country“, while the UN High Commissioner, “while recognising that the link criterion is not a requirement under international law, has reiterated its reservations about its abolition”. Similarly, the removal of the automatic suspensive effect of appeals “could substantially increase the workload of the courts of appeal and increase the risks of detention during appeals.” UNHCR and international organisations have also ‘warned of the potential risks of refoulement’.

But the EU executive has pressed ahead, backed by most member states. Diplomatic sources confirm that the proposal will be presented to the EU Council’s Working Party on Asylum on 10 June. At the same time, it will be examined by the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE). While the European People’s Party spoke of a “right message” towards “the creation of an efficient, manageable and fair system”, the Socialists and Democrats accused “the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Magnus Brunner” of “continuing to give gifts to right-wing forces, including the far right, in Member States and in the European Parliament”.