Sittings · Compare
What changed
DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,Committee of 23 October 2025,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,
– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A100000/2025),(A10-0255/2025),
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 2
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(1a)(2) InThe assessingexistence whetherof a third countryconnection fulfilsbetween the conditions to a beapplicant consideredand athe safe third country for the purposes of Regulationis (EU)not 2024/1348,required Memberby Statesinternational shouldrefugee belaw, ablenotably tothe takeGeneva intoConvention, accountor whetherinternational thathuman countryrights islaw, includednotably inthe aEuropean UnionConvention oron nationalHuman listRights. ofTherefore, safeMember countriesStates ofshould origin,have asthe referredpossibility to inapply Articlethe 61concept of that Regulation. The inclusion ofsafe athird country in suchwhere ano listconnection can constitute a relevantbe indicationestablished ofbetween the generalapplicant humanand rightsthe situationsafe andthird stabilitycountry inconcerned, thatprovided country.that Memberan Statesagreement shouldor ensurearrangement thatwith the applicant wouldthird havecountry effectiveconcerned accessrequires tothe effectiveexamination protectionof inthe thatmerits thirdof countryrequests infor lineeffective withprotection themade principleby ofapplicants non-refoulementsubject andto withthat Regulationagreement (EU)or 2024/1348.arrangement.
Or. en
(2) The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international human rights law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country where no connection can be established between the applicant and the safe third country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement concluded in writing, in a legally certain and transparent manner, either by the Union or by one or more Member States with the third country concerned requires the examination of the merits of requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(2) The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international human rights law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country where no connection can be established between the applicant and the safe third country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement with the third country concerned requires the examination of the merits of requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.
(2a) In order to ensure uniform application of Union law and to avoid divergent practices among Member States, the use of agreements or arrangements concluded by the Union with third countries is encouraged. Such Union-level instruments provide a common legal and procedural framework for cooperation on asylum and migration, ensure compliance with Union law and standards, and reinforce mutual trust between Member States in the application of the safe third country concept.
(2) The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international human rights law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country where no connection can be established between the applicant and the safe third country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement concluded either by the European Union or by one or more Member States with the third country concerned requires the examination of the merits of requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.
Or. en
Amendment 3
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)
Recital 3
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(2a) In order to ensure uniform application of Union law and to avoid divergent practices among Member States, the use of agreements or arrangements concluded by the European Union with third countries should be encouraged. Such Union-level instruments provide a common legal and procedural framework for cooperation on asylum and migration, ensure compliance with Union law and standards, and reinforce mutual trust between Member States in the application of the safe third country concept.
(3) Member States should have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on the basis of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, by which it would be reasonable for the applicant to go to that third country.
Or. en
(3) Member States should have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on the basis of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, by which it would be reasonable for the applicant to go to that third country. The connection between the applicant and the safe third country could be considered established in particular where members of the applicant’s family are present in that country or where the applicant has settled or stayed in that country, or where the applicant has other links with that country, such as the same or similar language, or other economic, cultural, religious, or geographical links.
Amendment 4
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(3)(4) Member States should also have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept onto applicants who transited through the basisterritory of a connectionthird betweencountry before entering the applicantUnion, andas theit thirdis countryreasonable concerned,to byexpect whichthat ita wouldperson beseeking reasonableinternational protection could have applied for theprotection applicantin toa gosafe tothird country through which that person transited. Previous transit through a safe third country.country provides an objective link between the applicant and the third country concerned.
(3)(4) Member States should also have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on the basisto ofapplicants awho connectiontransited betweenthrough the applicantterritory andof thea third country concerned,before entering the Union, as it is reasonable to expect that thea applicantperson couldseeking gointernational toprotection andcould applyhave forrequested effective protection in a safe third country through which that country.person transited. Previous transit through a safe third country provides an objective link between the applicant and the third country concerned.
Or. en
Amendment 5
Amendment
(4a) In order to preserve the effectiveness of the safe third country concept and to ensure a coherent application across the Union, Member States applying that concept shouldcan make full use of allthe grounds set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 before examining an application for international protection on its merits. They shouldcan therefore assess, in a comprehensive manner, whether the conditions relating to a connection, transit, or an existing agreement or arrangement with the third country concerned can be effectively applied. Only where none of these conditions can be applied, or where the third country refuses to admit or readmit the applicant, should the applicant be granted access to the asylum procedure within the Union.
Or. en
Amendment 6
(5) In view of the situation of vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and of the need for targeted support, the concept of safe third country should be applied to unaccompanied minors only where a connection or transit can be established with the third country concerned can be established and the conditions of Article 59(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council are fulfilled. Member States should ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions concerning minors.
(5) In view of the situation of vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and of the need for targeted support, the concept of safe third country should be applied to unaccompanied minors only where a connection or transit can be established within the thirdlimited countrycircumstances concernedset canout bein establishedthis Regulation and where the conditions of Article 59(6) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 ofare thefulfilled. EuropeanWhere Parliamentthe andconcept ofis thebeing Councilapplied areto fulfilled.applicants However,in whereaccordance therewith arean reasonableagreement groundsor toarrangement considerconcluded thatwith thea unaccompaniedthird minorcountry, representsit ashould dangernot, toas nationala securityrule, orbe publicapplied order,to Memberunaccompanied Statesminors shouldunless alsothere beare ablereasonable grounds to applyconsider that concept in accordancethe withunaccompanied theminor agreementsrepresents ora arrangementsdanger concludedto withnational thesecurity thirdor countrypublic concerned.order. In all cases, Member States should ensure that the best interests of the child areshould be a primary consideration for the Member States in all decisions concerning minors.
Or. en
Amendment 7
(6) It is necessary to enhance transparency regarding the conclusion by Member States of agreements and arrangements with safe third countries, to support Member States and the Commission in establishing a comprehensive approach on the external dimension of migration, and in coordinating their efforts towards third countries for applying the safe third country concept. This would also allow for monitoring whether agreements or arrangements with third countries fulfil the conditions set by this Regulation. It should also enable a more consistent and coherent application of the safe third country concept across the Union and contribute to the overall well-functioning of the Common European Asylum System. To this end, Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements with third countries.
(6) It is necessary to enhance transparency regarding the conclusion by the Union or Member States of agreements and arrangements with safe third countries,countries that fulfil the criteria set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, to support Member States and the Commission in establishing a comprehensive approach on the external dimension of migration, and in coordinating their efforts towards third countries for applying the safe third country concept. This would also allow for monitoring whether agreements or arrangements between the Union or one or more Member States with third countries fulfil the conditions set by thisthat Regulation. It should also enable a more consistent and coherent application of the safe third country concept across the Union and contribute to the overall well-functioning of the Common European Asylum System. To this end, Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States when opening negotiations and prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements with third countries.
Or. en
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 6 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(7) Member States should be able to take the necessary measures to address the risk that applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied abscond, including by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , or detaining the applicant concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of applications.
(6a) The Member States and the European Parliament must be informed when negotiations are opened on behalf of the Union and, prior to the conclusion of any agreements or arrangements with third countries related to the safe third country concept, of the outcome of such negotiations.
(7) Member States should be able to take all the necessary measures to prevent the risk of absconding of applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied, including by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , or detaining the applicant concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of applications.
__________________
__________________
2 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).
2 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).
Or. en
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 6 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(8) To enhance procedural efficiency, the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain on the territory of a Member State for the purpose of an appeal against inadmissibility decisions taken on the basis of the safe third country concept. Nonetheless, the enforcement of the corresponding return decision is to be suspended during the time limit within which the person concerned can exercise his or her right to an effective remedy before a court of first instance and when such appeal is lodged where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement.
(6b) Member States should be required to inform the Commission and other Member States prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements with third countries related to the safe third country concept.
(8) To enhance procedural efficiency, the applicant should not have an automatic right to remain on the territory of a Member State for the purpose of an appeal against inadmissibility decisions taken on the basis of the safe third country concept. Nonetheless, the enforcement of the corresponding return decision is to be suspended during the time limit within which the person concerned can exercise his or her right to an effective remedy before a court of first instance. Where such an appeal is lodged, enforcement may be suspended only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that that removal would result in a breach of the principle of non-refoulement.
Or. en
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
Recital 7
Regulation (EU) 2024/1348
Article 59 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
(-1) In Article 59(3) the following subparagraph is added:
(7) Member States should be able to take the necessary measures to address the risk that applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied abscond, including by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , or detaining the applicant concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of applications.
In assessing whether a third country fulfils the conditions to be considered a safe third country in accordance with this Article, Member States may take into account whether that country is included in a Union or national list of safe countries of origin as referred to in Article 61 of this Regulation.
(7) Member States should be able to take all the necessary measures to prevent the risk of absconding of applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied, including by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council2, or, as a measure of last resort, detaining the applicant concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of applications.
Or. en
__________________
__________________
2 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).
2 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).
Amendment 11
Regulation (EU) 2024/1348
Article 59 – paragraph 5 – point b – point i
Text proposed by the Commission
Amendment
i) there is a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, on the basis of which it would be reasonable for him or her to go to that country;
i) there is a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned,
Or. en
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Regulation (EU) 2024/1348
Article 59 – paragraph 5 – point b – point iii
iii) there is an agreement or an arrangement concluded by the Union or one or more Member States with the third country concerned requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.
Or. en
Amendment 12
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulation
In the application of the first paragraph, point (b), the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. The first paragraph, point (b)(iii), shall not apply where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, unless there are reasonable grounds to consider that the unaccompanied minor represents a danger to national security or public order under national law.
Or. en
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s initiative and supports its swift adoption, with limited clarifications aimed at reinforcing legal certainty and transparency. By embracing flexibility on the connection criterion and endorsing the revised rules on suspensive effect, the European Parliament can help complete a coherent framework that serves both protection and efficiency.
ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT
The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not include in her report input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.
MINORITY POSITION
pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure
Cecilia Strada, Birgit Sippel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Marina Kaljurand, Krzysztof Šmiszek, Murielle Laurent, Alessandro Zan, Matjaž Nemec, Saskia Bricmont, Leoluca Orlando, Jaume Assens Llodrà, Catarina Vieira, Ilaria Salis, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Pernando Barrena, Giuseppe Antoci
By offering the Member States the option of not applying the connection criterion when using the “safe third country concept”, and by replacing that criterion with legally non-binding, opaque and unaccountable arrangements with third countries, this proposal reopens the Pact on Asylum and Migration to allow Member States to unilaterally disapply the right to asylum by deeming all applications inadmissible, on the grounds that the applicants should have sought protection elsewhere.
In our view, this is clearly contrary to Article 78 TFEU which requires “the Union to develop a common policy on asylum ... with a view to offering appropriate status to any third-country national requiring international protection”, and to Article 18 of the Charter which guarantees the right to asylum in the Union.
By outsourcing our asylum policy to third countries, under the umbrella of the safe third country concept, we are entering into a new age of trade in people, where migrants are deported against their wishes in exchange for money. Moreover, this is a geopolitical mistake at a time when the Union sorely needs to build alliances based on common values, and a rebuke to the idea that we defend our European values.
MINORITY POSITION
pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure
Fabienne Keller, Raquel García-Hermida van der Walle, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Nikola Minchev, Irena Joveva
The proposal for the application of the “safe third country” concept raises serious concerns.
The removal of the connection link between an applicant and a third country is particularly problematic. This connection link, maintained in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), adopted in April 2024, is essential to ensure that any asylum seeker is transferred only to a country with which they have a meaningful and legitimate link. Eliminating this criterion would allow transfers based solely on transit or ad-hoc arrangements, creating a risk of instrumentalization by third countries. Moreover, such transfers are unlikely to be sustainable and will not reduce subsequent attempts to come back to the Union.
The introduction of arrangements with third countries further exacerbates these concerns. Arrangements mean legal uncertainty and the absence of EU-level oversight. They would dilute Member States’ responsibility for examining asylum claims, weaken judicial scrutiny, and expose applicants to conditions that do not meet EU or international standards.
The proposal also risks fragmenting the comprehensive framework established by the Pact on Migration and Asylum. Externalisation cannot substitute an effective European asylum system. Efforts must focus on implementing the Pact, ensuring fair asylum procedures and effective border management, and strengthening efficient return procedures.
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
Title
Amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept
References
COM(2025)0259 – C10-0088/2025 – 2025/0132(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament
20.5.2025
Committee(s) responsible
Date announced in plenary
LIBE
10.7.2025
Rapporteurs
Date appointed
Lena Düpont
22.9.2025
Discussed in committee
11.11.2025
Date adopted
3.12.2025
Result of final vote
+:
–:
0:
40
32
0
Members present for the final vote
Abir Al-Sahlani, Giuseppe Antoci, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Pernando Barrena Arza, Nikola Bartůšek, François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Saskia Bricmont, Jaroslav Bžoch, Damien Carême, Susanna Ceccardi, Caterina Chinnici, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Alessandro Ciriani, Lena Düpont, Marieke Ehlers, Estrella Galán, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Paolo Inselvini, Irena Joveva, Erik Kaliňák, Marina Kaljurand, Mariusz Kamiński, Fabienne Keller, Mary Khan, Alice Kuhnke, Murielle Laurent, Fabrice Leggeri, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Michael McNamara, Ana Catarina Mendes, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Matjaž Nemec, Ana Miguel Pedro, Ilaria Salis, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Petra Steger, Cecilia Strada, Georgiana Teodorescu, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Kristian Vigenin, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, Alessandro Zan, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
Substitutes present for the final vote
Katarina Barley, Anna Maria Cisint, Markéta Gregorová, Monika Hohlmeier, Nikola Minchev, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Leoluca Orlando, Oliver Schenk, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alexandre Varaut, Maciej Wąsik
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote
Stefano Cavedagna, José Cepeda, Pietro Fiocchi, Andrey Kovatchev, Marcos Ros Sempere, Michał Szczerba, Catarina Vieira
Date tabled
9.12.2025
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE
40
+
ECR
Stefano Cavedagna, Alessandro Ciriani, Pietro Fiocchi, Paolo Inselvini, Mariusz Kamiński, Georgiana Teodorescu, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Maciej Wąsik
ESN
Mary Khan, Milan Uhrík, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik
NI
Erik Kaliňák
PPE
François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Caterina Chinnici, Lena Düpont, Monika Hohlmeier, Andrey Kovatchev, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Ana Miguel Pedro, Oliver Schenk, Michał Szczerba, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
PfE
Nikola Bartůšek, Jaroslav Bžoch, Susanna Ceccardi, Anna Maria Cisint, Marieke Ehlers, Fabrice Leggeri, Petra Steger, Tom Vandendriessche, Alexandre Varaut
32
-
Renew
Abir Al-Sahlani, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Irena Joveva, Fabienne Keller, Michael McNamara, Nikola Minchev, Jan-Christoph Oetjen
S&D
Katarina Barley, José Cepeda, Marina Kaljurand, Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Matjaž Nemec, Marcos Ros Sempere, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Cecilia Strada, Kristian Vigenin, Alessandro Zan
The Left
Giuseppe Antoci, Pernando Barrena Arza, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Ilaria Salis
Verts/ALE
Jaume Asens Llodrà, Saskia Bricmont, Markéta Gregorová, Alice Kuhnke, Leoluca Orlando, Catarina Vieira
0
0
Key to symbols:
+ : in favour
- : against
0 : abstention