Sittings · Document

DRAFT OPINION (COM(2025)0186 – C100069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)) 2025-09-11

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 can 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 approach undermine 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 (EUCJ) 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 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.

__________________

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).

Or. en

Justification

EUCJ recently ruled (C-758/24) that applicants for international protection, on the one hand, and courts hearing actions brought by them, on the other hand, must not be prevented to, respectively, challenge and review the origin, authoritativeness, reliability, relevance, topicality, completeness and content of the information which led to the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin, in order to be in line with the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.

Amendment 2

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 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, therefore, be concluded that those third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should be designated as safe countries of origin, except where 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; 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; or when the EU-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20%.

(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 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, therefore, be concluded that those third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should be designated as safe countries of origin, except where the following circumstances apply: there is a threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country; 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; the country is experiencing a serious risk of breach of the values on which the EU is founded - the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

Or. en

Justification

Wording of Article 2 TEU, echoed in Article 21 TEU.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) With regard to Kosovo5 , according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 16 Member States currently designate Kosovo as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Kosovo was 5% in 2024. Kosovo is a potential candidate for membership of the Union. Its Constitution incorporates the main international human rights instruments. Kosovo is a multi-party parliamentary representative democracy with a division of power between the legislative, executive and judicial institutions and the relevant legal framework is in line with European standards. In general the legal framework guarantees the protection of fundamental rights and it is in line with European standards. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Kosovo to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is no risk of serious harm in Kosovo within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation 2024/13476 . There is no death penalty in the national law and Kosovo authorities show commitment to the prevention of torture and ill treatment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Kosovo and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is no persecution in Kosovo within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation 2024/1347.

__________________

5 This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

6 Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted, amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC and repealing Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L, 2024/1347, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1347/oj )

Or. en

Amendment 4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) With regard to Bangladesh, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 6 Member States currently designate Bangladesh as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Bangladesh was 4% in 2024. The country has ratified some international human rights instruments. Bangladesh is a parliamentary republic governed by a Constitution, which prescribes the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Bangladesh to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation 2024/1347. Although Bangladesh retains the death penalty and did not sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty, death sentences are rarely carried out. Bangladesh has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Bangladesh and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Various sources, including UN's, are not conducive to assess the situation in the country - in particular the relevant laws and regulations and their application, observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights or the UN Convention against Torture, and the judicial system - as ensuring sufficient protection against persecution or serious harm to their nationals to comply with the concept of 'safe country of origin' under APR Art 61.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) With regard to Colombia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, no Member State currently designates Colombia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Colombia was 5% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. The 1991 Constitution and ensuing jurisprudence by the Constitutional Court provide for strong human rights guarantees. Colombia is a federal republic with a democratic representative political system and a division of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. There are no indications of widespread expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Colombia to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no risk of serious harm in Colombia within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347, except in specific rural areas with no integral presence of the State. The death penalty is prohibited under the Colombian Constitution. The legal framework prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment is in line with international standards. There is no generalised threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) With regard to Egypt, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 6 Member States currently designate Egypt as a safe country of origin at national level, and the EU-wide recognition rate for applicants from Egypt was 4% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Egypt is a republic where the President serves as both the head of state and the head of the executive. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Egypt to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Although Egypt retains the death penalty under the Penal Code and military laws, Egypt has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Egypt has declared in its National Strategy for Human Rights its intention to reform the law on pre-trial detention, ameliorate detention conditions, limit the number of crimes punished by death and enhance the culture of human rights across all government institutions. Effective implementation is needed, progress having so far been made in the institutional track. There is no armed conflict taking place in Egypt and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) With regard to India, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 9 Member States currently designate India as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from India was 2% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. India is a constitutional republic and a parliamentary democracy. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of India to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. While India retains the death penalty in its criminal law and did not sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty, nevertheless, the death penalty has not been applied in practice since 2020. India has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in India and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) With regard to Morocco, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 11 Member States currently designate Morocco as a safe country of origin at national level and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Morocco was 4% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Morocco is a parliamentary monarchy. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Morocco to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Morocco has observed a moratorium on the application of the death penalty since 1993, although it retains the death penalty in its criminal law and has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Morocco has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Morocco and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) With regard to Tunisia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 10 Member States currently designate Tunisia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Tunisia was 4% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. The 2022 Constitution establishes a presidential system. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Tunisia to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Tunisia has observed a moratorium on the application of the death penalty since 1991, although it retains the death penalty in its criminal law and has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Tunisia has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Tunisia and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Nevertheless, considering that there is, in general, no risk of persecution or serious harm, within the meaning of Regulation 2024/1347, in Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as Kosovo as potential candidate for membership of the Union, as also shown by the very low recognition rates, they should be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level.

(16) Nevertheless, considering that there is, in general, no risk of persecution or serious harm, within the meaning of Regulation 2024/1347, in Kosovo as potential candidate for membership of the Union, as also shown by the very low recognition rates, this country should be designated as a safe country of origin at Union level.

Or. en

Amendment 11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17a) When implementing this Regulation, special attention should be paid to identify applicants from safe countries of origin whose claims are based on grounds that may be more difficult to detect, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence and victims of torture.

Or. en

Amendment 12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Considering that the migratory situation can rapidly change and there is increased pressure resulting from the arrivals of mixed flows with a high proportion of those with low chances of receiving international protection, Member States should be able to apply the ground for accelerating the examination of applications set out in Article 41(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, from an earlier date than the general date of application of that Regulation. This would allow Member States to react quickly and in a flexible manner to changes in the migratory flows. Considering that applications from such applicants are likely to be unfounded, dealing with them swiftly in an accelerated or a border procedure would allow the asylum and migration authorities to more efficiently assess genuine claims, deliver faster decisions and thereby contribute to a better and more credible functioning of asylum and return policies, in full respect of fundamental rights.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Moreover, in order to take into account complex and actual situations in third countries, Member States, when applying or introducing legislation that allows for the national designation of a third country as a safe country of origin or as a safe third country, should be able to do so with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons, before Regulation 2024/1348 starts to apply.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of a common list of safe countries of origin at Union level and advancing the application of certain provisions of Regulation 2024/1348, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can only be achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(20) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the establishment of a common list of safe countries of origin at Union level cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can only be achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

Or. en

Amendment 15

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 its Articles 18, 19 and 47.

Or. en

Amendment 16

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 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. en

Amendment 17

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.;

(c) the country is experiencing a serious risk of breach of the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union;

Or. en

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 79 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

However, Article 59(2), Article 61(2) and Article 61(5) point (b) shall apply from the day of entry into force of Regulation (EU) …/…[amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348] as regards the application of the concept of ‘safe third country’ in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 Directive 2013/32/EU and that of ‘safe country of origin’ in accordance with Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU.;

Or. en

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 79 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) in paragraph 3 the following subparagraph is added:

deleted

‘Member States may apply Article 42(1), point (j) and Article 42(3), point (e), as grounds for the accelerated examination procedure in accordance with Article 31(8) of Directive 2013/32/EU or for the procedure conducted at the border or in transit zones in accordance with Article 43 of Directive 2013/32/EU before 12 June 2026.;’

Or. en

Amendment 20

Proposal for a regulation

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The following third countries are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level:

The following country is designated as safe country of origin at Union level:

Bangladesh

Colombia

Egypt

India

Kosovo*

Morocco

Tunisia

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.’

Or. en