Sittings · Document

OPINION (COM(2025)0186 – C100069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)) 2025-11-21

On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level

Committee on Foreign Affairs · Rapporteur: Marco Tarquinio

PA_Legam

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Introduction

Even if the work towards a harmonisation of the safe country of origin lists can be considered a positive step towards a common EU asylum system, most of the countries included in the Commission's proposed list cannot be considered “safe”. Well-documented ongoing human rights violations, including threats to freedom of expression, political repression, and gender-based violence and persecution of vulnerable groups, contradict such an assessment.

The amended Commission proposal risks undermining the right of effective remedy for asylum applicants, guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and constitutes a form of externalisation of the EU’s international protection obligations. In fact, the proposal shifts responsibility onto third countries while weakening access to fair and effective asylum procedures within the EU.

Lack of substantial procedural safeguards

The "safe country of origin" concept rests on a rebuttable presumption of safety, therefore shifting the burden of proof to the applicant and serving as a ground for accelerated and border procedures. Such an approach undermines legal certainty because it:

a) erodes the principle of individualised asylum assessment - the cornerstone of refugee law - whereby every applicant is entitled to a merit-based evaluation;

b) allows to shorten deadlines, restrict access to information and legal assistance, and assume claims are probably groundless, thereby curtailing asylum seekers’ ability to present their case;

c) in combination with the elimination of the automatic suspensive effect of appeals against negative decisions foreseen in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), create the risk of deportation after an accelerated procedure before the full completion of a judicial procedure.

The Commission has even failed to publish all criteria and sources used for the designation of the safe third countries. This lack of transparency seriously undermines the right of an effective remedy and fails to provide the necessary procedural safeguards, as it reduces both applicants’ ability to contest decisions and judicial authorities’ capacity to review them.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its recent judgment of 1 August 2025 (Case C-758/24) recalled that designations must be based on reliable, up-to-date, transparent and accessible sources. Yet, the Commission did not publish its sources. MEPs received access to relevant EUAA documents on the identified safe countries of origins that were provided to the Commission in view of this proposal, on the basis of a "need to know" consultation. No other sources were clearly identified or disclosed by the Commission to the European Parliament, neither were made accessible to the public.

The 20% EU-wide recognition rate criteria

The reliance on a recognition rate at EU level of 20% as a threshold for designating a country as safe is unsubstantiated because:

a) a one-in-five recognition rate is far from negligible and demonstrates that significant groups of applicants are indeed in need of protection;

b) recognition rates at Member States level could differ drastically;

c) even if the overall recognition rate is low, vulnerable categories - such as women, LGBTIQ people, and ethnic and religious minorities - may face heightened risks of persecution and serious harm;

d) certain regions within a country may be unsafe despite an overall presumption of safety.

For these reasons, the correlation between the 20% recognition rate and the concept of “safety” cannot serve as a sound basis for inclusion in the list.

Candidate countries

The candidate status is not sufficient to determine if a country is safe. The Copenhagen criteria are benchmarks for EU accession, not a thorough assessment about the human rights at the time the candidate status is granted.

Furthermore, the Commission should include among the conditionalities risks such as systemic discrimination against minorities, democratic backsliding or outbreaks of armed conflict that may occur during the accession process.

Potential candidate for EU memberships

The methodology used for the candidate countries should be applied also to potential candidates.

Other countries of origin

Based on information from the EUAA and other relevant organisations, there are no sufficient grounds to designate Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia as safe countries of origins.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Affairs submits the following to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible:

Amendment 1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a) The designation of a third country as safe country of origin has to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where the applicant cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.

(3) The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where the applicant cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment with the guarantees laid down in Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities, political activists, stateless persons and journalists, may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (‘the Asylum Agency’), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations. The assessment also takes into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including but not limited to information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (‘the Asylum Agency’), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations, including independent non-governmental human rights organisations. The assessment also takes into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Sources should be accessible, transparent, reliable and up to date, also to ensure the right to an effective remedy and the appropriate procedural safeguards.

__________________

4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 (OJ L 468, 30.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2303/oj).

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) The EU candidate countries have been granted this status by the European Council through a unanimous decision, following a recommendation from the European Commission. With regard, in particular, to the political criteria for EU membership, the EU candidate countries were found, when their status was granted, to have advanced towards reaching the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It can be concluded that third countries that have been granted EU candidate status may be considered as safe countries of origin within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and may be designated accordingly as safe countries of origin at Union level. However, EU accession is not a linear process. Democratic, rule of law and human rights backsliding of candidate countries may occur, as well as significant delays or de-facto freezing of the EU accession negotiations. Therefore, third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should not be designated as safe countries of origin if from the continuous country-specific review it emerges that the conditions laid down in Article 61 are not met anymore or that any of the following circumstances apply: there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country or a serious backsliding of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms, including when accession negotiations have been suspended or frozen; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions;

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) The designation of those countries as safe countries of origin at Union level is without prejudice to the rule set out in Regulation 2024/1348, according to which Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where applicants cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to them, in the framework of an individual assessment. In that context, special attention should be paid to applicants who are in a specific situation in those countries, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious minorities and journalists.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17a) The importance of the Pact on Migration and Asylum should be highlighted as the comprehensive approach to the management of migration and asylum while upholding the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between Member States for upholding human rights and providing humane protection to those who genuinely need it. Therefore, the swift application of parts of the Pact on Migration and Asylum that can already be applied is of the utmost importance.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17b) It is to be highlighted that the purpose of the border procedure is to relieve the system of the burden of processing, through asylum procedures. The goal is to offer better and faster protection to those who are entitled to international protection, by identifying them early within the system.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

(23) This Regulation must be applied in full respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular Articles 18, 19 and 47 thereof.

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Article 62, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:

(1) Article 62 is amended as follows:

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – introductory part

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(a) the following paragraph 1a is inserted:

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The countries that have been granted the status of candidate states for accession to the Union are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, unless one of more of the following circumstances apply:

1a. In accordance with paragraph 1 and without prejudice to paragraph 4, the countries that have been granted the status of candidate states for accession to the Union are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, unless, according to the country specific review, one or more of the following circumstances apply:

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country;

(a) there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country or a serious backsliding of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms, including when accession negotiations have been frozen or formally suspended;

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection to the applicants from the country - either its nationals or former habitual residents in case of stateless persons – is higher than 20% according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data.;

deleted

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – introductory part

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the following paragraph 1a is inserted:

(b) the following paragraph 1b is inserted:

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. The third countries listed in Annex II shall be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level;

1b. In accordance with paragraph 1 and without prejudice to paragraph 4, the third countries listed in Annex II are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level;

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Present text

Amendment

(ba) Article 62, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

2. The Commission shall review the situation in third countries that are designated as safe countries of origin, with the assistance of the Asylum Agency and on the basis of the other sources of information referred to in Article 61(3).

2. The Commission, with the assistance of the Asylum Agency and on the basis of the other sources of information referred to in Article 61(3), shall continuously review whether the conditions laid down in Article 61 and any of the circumstances referred to in points (a) or (b) apply to a third country that is already considered as a safe country of origin.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he included in his opinion input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)

2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for opinion.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Title

Amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level

References

COM(2025)0186 – C10-0069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)

Committee(s) responsible

Date announced in plenary

LIBE

16.6.2025

Opinion by

Date announced in plenary

AFET

16.6.2025

Rapporteur for the opinion

Date appointed

Marco Tarquinio

1.9.2025

Discussed in committee

24.9.2025

Date adopted

20.11.2025

Result of final vote

–:

Members present for the final vote

Petras Auštrevičius, Wouter Beke, Adam Bielan, Ľuboš Blaha, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Grzegorz Braun, Sebastião Bugalho, Tobias Cremer, Loucas Fourlas, Michael Gahler, Christophe Gomart, Bernard Guetta, Hana Jalloul Muro, Sandra Kalniete, Łukasz Kohut, Ondřej Kolář, Rihards Kols, David McAllister, Sven Mikser, Francisco José Millán Mon, Kostas Papadakis, Tonino Picula, Thijs Reuten, Nela Riehl, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Mounir Satouri, Villy Søvndal, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Marta Temido, Cristian Terheş, Riho Terras, Hermann Tertsch, Hilde Vautmans

Substitutes present for the final vote

Jaume Asens Llodrà, Krzysztof Brejza, Seán Kelly, Alessandra Moretti, Hans Neuhoff, Marjan Šarec, Sven Simon, Marco Tarquinio, Matthieu Valet

Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote

Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Paulius Saudargas, Günther Sidl, Dimitris Tsiodras, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Key to symbols: