Sittings · Document

Draft report (COM(2025)0186 – C100069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)) 2025-10-27

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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

AM_Com_LegReport

Amendment 12

Damien Carême, Ilaria Salis, Estrella Galán

Proposal for a regulation

–

Proposal for rejection

The European Parliament rejects the Commission’s proposal.

Or. en

Justification

The establishment of an EU list of safe countries of origin undermines the right to an individual assessment of asylum claims, shifts the burden of proof unfairly onto applicants, and weakens procedural safeguards. The automatic designation of candidate countries and the inclusion of states with well-documented human rights abuses reflects political expediency rather than objective protection needs.

Amendment 13

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

–

Proposal for rejection

The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal.

Or. en

Amendment 14

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Recital -1 (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(-1) In December 2023, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, marking a major step towards a common and comprehensive framework for the orderly management of migration in the Union. It also reinforces the Union’s external dimension by strengthening cooperation with international partners and third countries.

Or. en

Amendment 15

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council3, specific rules may apply where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin. In particular, the examination of an application has to be accelerated and, if the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States' territory, a Member State may examine the merits of an application in a border procedure. The Asylum Procedure Regulation also foresees the designation of safe countries of origin at Union level, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 61 of said Regulation.

_________________

3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 16

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council3, specific rules may apply where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 17

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) The designation of a country as a safe country of origin must comply with strict safeguards. Article 61(1) of the Asylum Procedures Regulation requires an assessment, within a democratic system, that no persecution or serious harm exists under the Qualification Regulation, taking into account the functioning of institutions and the rule of law.

Or. en

Amendment 18

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1b) Pursuant to Article 61(4) of the Asylum Procedures Regulation, such assessment must consider legislation and its application in practice, compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the prohibition of refoulement, and the availability of effective remedies, in line with the principle of non-refoulement in Union and international law.

Or. en

Amendment 19

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1c) Article 61(2) of the Asylum Procedures Regulation recognises that specific groups, such as women, LGBTI persons, persons with disabilities, religious minorities or human rights defenders, may face particular risks. Their situation must be addressed at the stage of designation as well as in application, in order to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and international human rights treaties. Where large categories of people must be excluded from designation due to systemic risks, this should reveal general deficiencies that preclude designating the country as safe. Respect for human dignity, minorities and the rule of law requires that countries with widespread or constant persecution not to be designated.

Or. en

Amendment 20

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1d) Effective judicial review of safe country of origin designations requires that sources used in the assessment be transparent and accessible, including to applicants, in order to ensure consistency in decision-making and the right to an effective remedy.

Or. en

Amendment 21

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) It is necessary to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. It is also necessary to address some of the existing divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries of origin. Therefore a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. While Member States retain the right to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of third countries other than those designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, such common designation at Union level should ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 22

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that the concept of a ‘safe country of origin’ constitutes a special examination scheme which is exceptional in nature and, as such, must be interpreted and applied strictly1a.

_________________

1a CJEU, C-406/22 CV v. Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, 4 October 2024, paras 47 and 70-71; C-404/17 A, 25 July 2018, para 25.

Or. en

Amendment 23

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Catarina Mendes, Sandro Ruotolo, Alessandro Zan, Francisco Assis, Marco Tarquinio

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) The application of the safe country of origin concept at Union level should be enhanced, as a tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin in a Union list. This Union list should address existing divergences between Member States national lists of safe countries of origin. Therefore, a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. In order to ensure that this list provides harmonisation, facilitates convergence in the application procedures and thereby also deters secondary movements of applicants for international protection, and ensures a coherent approach to safe countries of origin across the Member States, the Member States should no longer be able to maintain parallel national lists of safe countries of origin other than those designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. Such common designation at Union level should ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated.

Or. en

Justification

To provide a clear added value to an EU list of SCO, to ensure that Member States approach to SCO is coherent and harmonised, and to avoid divergent practices leading to ever-expanding differences in handling applications for asylum and the related secondary movements, national lists should no longer be used once a European list has been created.

Amendment 24

Sebastian Tynkkynen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fi

Amendment 25

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Mariusz Kamiński, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Maciej Wąsik

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) It is necessary to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. It is also necessary to address some of the existing divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries of origin in order to streamline asylum and return procedures and thus counteract migration crises, particularly in the event of a mass influx of applicants from safe countries. Therefore a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. Member States may decide independently at national level on the recognition of third countries as safe, going beyond the list of safe countries of origin at Union level. Such common designation at Union level aims to ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated.

Or. pl

Amendment 26

Susanna Ceccardi, Nikola Bartůšek, António Tânger Corrêa, Fabrice Leggeri, Marieke Ehlers, Tom Vandendriessche, Roberto Vannacci, Jaroslav Bžoch, Anna Maria Cisint, Pascale Piera, Petra Steger, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Alexandre Varaut

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) It is necessary to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. Divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries of origin persist, therefore a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. While Member States retain the right to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of third countries other than those designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, such common designation at Union level should ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated.

Or. en

Amendment 27

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a) The designation of a safe country of origin is an essential instrument to ensure swift and predictable procedures. As confirmed by the co-legislators in the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the use of such accelerated procedures does not alter or diminish the safeguards and guarantees enshrined in Union law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. By allowing manifestly unfounded claims to be decided rapidly, it enables protection to be delivered more swiftly to those genuinely in need.

Or. en

Amendment 28

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Mariusz Kamiński, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Maciej Wąsik

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a) The proposed list is a minimum list, not an exclusive one. This is of fundamental importance in its application, as Member States should be able to exchange experiences on the basis of a common reference point, while retaining full flexibility and discretion in establishing national lists of safe countries of origin.

Or. pl

Amendment 29

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a) The reasoning with regard to amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, concerning the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level falls short of the procedural requirements set by both primary EU law and Article 61 of the Asylum Procedures Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 30

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Mariusz Kamiński, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Maciej Wąsik

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2b) It is necessary to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. The cases of applicants from safe countries should be examined under the inadmissible application procedure, the accelerated procedure or the proposed limited asylum procedure, taking into account that the grounds for this, as set out in Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 are usually met in cases of applicants from safe countries.

Or. pl

Amendment 31

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2b) The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that the concept of a ‘safe country of origin’ constitutes a special examination scheme which is exceptional in nature and, as such, must be interpreted and applied strictly.1a

_________________

1a CJEU, C-406/22 CV v. Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky, 4 October 2024, paras 47 and 70-71; C-404/17 A, 25 July 2018, para 25.

Or. en

Amendment 32

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2c) In accordance with the right to seek asylum under Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, every application for international protection in the Union must be assessed individually and on its own merits. The application of the safe country of origin concept undermines this principle by allowing for accelerated examination of claims on the presumption that they are likely to be unfounded. Such procedures carry the risk that individual vulnerabilities, including those of applicants with specific needs or from marginalised communities, may not be adequately identified. Moreover, the accelerated procedures limit procedural safeguards, including reduced timeframes and restricted access to legal and other forms of support.

Or. en

Amendment 33

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2d) If a Member State has listed a third country as 'safe country of origin', any organisation or individual concerned with the protection of human rights can submit a complaint to the Commission if the designation is not compliant with EU and international law. The Commission should examine the request and take all necessary measures to ensure compliance of the Member State. The Commission should also examine such an issue on its own initiative. The Commission should inform the relevant Member State and ask it for its observations. Within one month of the start of the assessment, the Commission should decide on the compatibility of the qualification of this third country as ‘safe’ with EU law. If the Commission's view is negative, the Member State should withdraw the relevant measure.

Or. en

Amendment 34

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

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 with the guarantees laid out 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. With regard to the treatment of persons falling within the scope of this Regulation, Member States are bound by obligations under instruments of international law to which they are party, including, in particular, those that prohibit discrimination.

Or. en

Amendment 35

Damien Carême

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, should not 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. The premise of safe countries of origin should only be applied after an asylum application has been individually examined and the applicant has been able to access the full range of services and resources available to all applicants in the asylum procedure, including but not limited to, an adequate personal interview, legal assistance, translation, safe accommodation and access to an appeal process. This concept should never be applied to categories of applicants who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm. All applications should be considered on the applicants circumstances in the third country. Where an applicant shows that there are serious reasons - on grounds of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or activities - to consider the country not to be safe in his or her particular circumstances, the designation of the country as safe can no longer be considered relevant for him or her. Due care should also be given to applicants from minority groups where burden of proof can violate their dignity or put them at an increased risk of danger.

Or. en

Amendment 36

Erik Kaliňák

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, constitutes an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country. Member States are obliged to apply the concept of a safe country of origin in all cases 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 has had ties with that country (e.g., habitual residence).

Or. sk

Amendment 37

Sebastian Tynkkynen

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 in situations where they consider that the applicant cannot provide legal evidence 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 can prove that the country was his or her former country of residence. 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 and immediate fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm. Applicants must always be able to prove that they have valid grounds for fearing persecution or that they face a real risk of suffering serious harm.

Or. fi

Amendment 38

Erik Marquardt

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 and should not 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, given an effective opportunity and access to all relevant information necessary to do so, 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.

Or. en

Amendment 39

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. Member States apply the concept of a safe country of origin where the applicant cannot provide genuine and fact-based 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.

Or. en

Amendment 40

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3a) All applicants should have the right to an effective remedy in the case of a negative decision as well as to lawfully remain on the territory pending such an appeal.

Or. en

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) With regard to the countries that have been granted the status of candidate States for accession to the Union, the Treaty on European Union sets out the conditions and principles to which any country wishing to become a Member State must conform. These criteria were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995. They are stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU; and the ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law, and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union. A country is granted candidate country status by the European Council on the basis of an opinion from the European Commission, drawn up following the country’s application membership of the Union.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Article 61(1) APR makes it clear that a third country may only be designated as a SCO where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is no persecution as defined in Article 9 QR and no real risk of serious harm as defined in Article 17 QR. The Commission's recital seeks to circumvent these requirements.

Amendment 42

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 43

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 44

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries must be 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 and non-governmental organisations. The assessment should also take 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. In accordance with Article 12 (4) of Regulation 439/2010, all the information collected and analysis conducted by the Agency on safe countries of origin shall be made available to the European Parliament. Following the conclusion of the Court of Justice of the EU in case C-406/22, the legality of a designation of a country as a safe country of origin constitutes a point of law that must be reviewable ex officio. Therefore, the sources consulted for the purpose of designating a safe country of origin at EU level must be reliable, up-to-date and transparent, and should be accessible to courts, applicants and their representatives.

_________________

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

Amendment 45

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The assessment of the situation in third countries should be 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 and non-governmental human rights organisations. The assessment should also take 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 Council, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Sources on which the assessment is based need to be reliable, up-to-date, transparent and accessible, for adequate scrutiny.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 46

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

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 governmental and 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. In line with Regulation (EU) 2021/2303, the EUAA should create a publicly accessible database of all the information used to support the identification of the countries that could be considered for possible designation as safe countries of origin at Union level.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 47

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. In order to ensure efficiency and flexibility, the Commission should not be limited to predetermined categories of sources and should retain discretion to base its assessment on the most appropriate and timely information available. 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 reliable and up-to-date.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

Adding rigid requirements regarding the nature of the sources would unduly constrain the Commission and could slow down the update of the Union list of safe countries of origin. The purpose of this recital is to ensure that assessments can rely on the most relevant and up-to-date information available, while maintaining the necessary flexibility for the Commission to react swiftly to evolving circumstances. Over-formalisation risks delaying decisions and undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the instrument.

Amendment 48

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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, assessing the situation of those persons in the country, to whom this Regulation applies, including stateless persons. 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. That assessment shall be based on reliable, verifiable, and up-to-date sources, and it shall be carried out in a transparent manner.

_________________

Or. en

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) The assessment of the situation in third countries to be designated as safe countries of origin 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. In order to ensure the right to an effective remedy and the effectiveness of procedural safeguards, the sources referred to should be reliable, up-to-date and publicly accessible.

_________________

Or. en

Justification

Article 61(1) APR makes clear that all third countries must be subject to the same test in order to be identified as SCO. In addition, in accordance with the case-law of the CJEU, sufficient and adequate access to sources of information relied upon to designate safe countries of origin must be ensured. The applicant must be able to properly acquaint themselves with those sources of information. Given that an EU list is to be established, this requires public accessibility of the sources to ensure all applicants will, where necessary, be able to acquaint themselves with the sources used.

Amendment 50

Erik Kaliňák

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, particularly from Member States, or alternatively from 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) 2021/23034 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

_________________

Or. sk

Amendment 51

Assita Kanko

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5a) The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin is based on official and qualified sources of information, assessed by the competent authorities, therefore, such sources should not be subject to national judicial review. In fact, without prejudice to the general designation of the interested third country as a safe country of origin, national judicial review should just be limited to examining the detailed evidence provided by the applicant regarding his or her specific individual situation justifying, in his or her case, the inapplicability of the concept of safe country of origin.

Or. en

Amendment 52

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5a) In assessing whether a third country may be considered a safe country of origin for the purposes of this Regulation, Member States should be able to take into account whether that country is included in a Union or national list of safe third countries, as referred to in Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. The inclusion of a country in such a list may constitute a relevant indication of the general human rights situation and stability in that country.

Or. en

Amendment 53

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5a) In case the conditions set down in Article 61 of this Regulation are no longer met by a country designated as safe country of origin, that country should be removed from the designation.

Or. en

Amendment 54

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5b) The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin under this Regulation, whether at Union level or in a national list, based on reliable and duly substantiated sources, reflects the general situation in that country and is not affected by the individual circumstances, which may only be assessed for the purposes of determining whether the safe country of origin concept should exceptionally not be applied in a specific case.

Or. en

Amendment 55

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%.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 56

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 57

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 58

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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, given that the accession process itself entails continuous and comprehensive monitoring of their compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. 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 such as freezing the accession process; or the sudden backsliding in democratic standards in the candidate country as is the case in Georgia for example; or when the EU-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20 %.

Or. en

Justification

The candidate status is granted by the European Council following a thorough assessment, and is accompanied by constant monitoring of compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. A clear and predictable framework is needed, where exceptions are limited to extraordinary and verifiable circumstances. This ensures that the Union list remains credible, effective and aligned with the enlargement process.

Amendment 59

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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 third countries that have been granted EU candidate status could be designated as safe countries of origin, except where the following circumstances apply: there is no 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 accession negotiations have been suspended. For each candidate country, a country-specific assessment should be carried out in accordance with Article 62(3) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and with the sources listed in Article 61, on the basis of which a decision should be taken regarding its designation as a safe country of origin at Union level.

Or. en

Amendment 60

Tomáš Zdechovský

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 may be designated as safe countries of origin following a regular and evidence-based assessment conducted by the Commission in cooperation with Member States and the European Union Agency for Asylum, taking into account up-to-date reports on human rights and security, 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 %.

Or. en

Amendment 61

Milan Uhrík

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. en

Amendment 62

Sebastian Tynkkynen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fi

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a) With regard to Albania, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. There are no indications of refoulement of Albanian citizens. There is, in general, no persecution in Albania within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Albania exercises control over its territory. There is no armed conflict and there is accordingly no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no risk of serious harm in Albania within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Or. en

Justification

Albania meets the criteria laid down in Article 61(1) APR to be designated as a safe country of origin. This is and must be independent of its status as a candidate country for EU accession

Amendment 64

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a) In situations where the Union activates temporary protection in respect of a specific candidate country, it should be presumed that the condition of 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 is fulfilled.

Or. en

Amendment 65

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6b) With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, its Constitution provides a basis for the sharing of powers between the country's constituent peoples. The legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. There are no indications of refoulement of its own citizens. There is, in general, no persecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation 2024/1347. The security situation in the country is stable and normalised in part thanks to the EU-led multi-national stabilisation force (EUFOR ALTHEA). There is no armed conflict. There is, in general, no risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation 2024/1347.

Or. en

Justification

Bosnia and Herzegovina meets the criteria laid down in Article 61(1) APR to be designated as a safe country of origin. This is and must be independent of its status as a candidate country for EU accession

Amendment 66

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6b) To ensure uniform application and legal certainty, the Commission should maintain a consolidated registry of Union restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union adopted in respect of third countries and inform Member States without delay of any modification.

Or. en

Amendment 67

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6c) With regard to Montenegro, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all international human rights treaties. There are no indications of refoulement of its own citizens. There is, in general, no risk of persecution in Montenegro within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 2024/1347. Montenegro enjoys a high level of peacefulness, and its civilian authorities maintain effective control over the entire territory of the country and its security forces. There is, in general, no risk of serious harm in Montenegro within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) N0 2024/1347.

Or. en

Justification

Montenegro meets the criteria laid down in Article 61(1) APR to be designated as a safe country of origin. This is and must be independent of its status as a candidate country for EU accession

Amendment 68

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6d) With regard to North Macedonia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, the legal basis for protection against persecution and mistreatment is adequately provided by substantive and procedural human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, including membership of all major international human rights treaties. There are no indications of any incidents of refoulement of its own citizens. There is, in general, no risk of persecution within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. North Macedonia authorities exercise effective control over its territory. It enjoys a high level of peace. There is, in general, no risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Or. en

Justification

North Macedonia meets the criteria laid down in Article 61(1) APR to be designated as a safe country of origin. This is and must be independent of its status as a candidate country for EU accession

Amendment 69

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

_________________

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 70

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

_________________

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.

Or. en

Amendment 71

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Kosovo is making significant efforts to tackle smuggling and human trafficking, however efforts are still needed and the EU should engage and provide assistance to the country in this matter. 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. It can, therefore, be concluded that Kosovo should be designated as a safe country of origin in line with the assessment of the European Union Agency for Asylum and the overwhelming practice of Member States. In order to ensure consistency and predictability, Kosovo should be treated as a safe country of origin as a rule. Only in the event of clearly demonstrable and extraordinary circumstances, such as the outbreak of armed conflict, should this designation be reconsidered.

_________________

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.

Or. en

Justification

Kosovo clearly meets the objective criteria for being designated as a safe country of origin, as demonstrated by the very low EU-wide recognition rate of asylum applications and the constitutional framework that incorporates key international human rights instruments. The designation of Kosovo should therefore follow a rules-based approach, relying on objective indicators and allowing reconsideration only in exceptional and verifiable circumstances, such as the outbreak of armed conflict. This ensures the credibility, stability and effectiveness of the common EU list.

Amendment 72

Erik Kaliňák

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) With regard to Kosovo5, its legal framework generally 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.

Or. sk

Amendment 73

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7a) With regard to Albania, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 18 Member States currently designate Albania as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Albania was 5 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Albania 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 Albania 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. The death penalty has been abolished under all circumstances in 2007 and torture is prohibited by the Constitution of Albania. There is no armed conflict taking place in Albania 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.

Or. en

Amendment 74

Erik Marquardt

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

Amendment 75

Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 76

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 77

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Catarina Mendes, Alessandro Zan, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Marco Tarquinio

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Information provided by the Asylum Agency makes clear that the political situation in Bangladesh is precarious since the overthrow of the previous Sheikh Hasina government, only one year ago. New elections can be organised only once extensive reforms are undertaken to restore democratic institutions. The situation in Bangladesh currently is thus not one in which there is the application of law within a democratic system as required under Article 61(1) APR.

Amendment 78

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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. 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, yet 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. However, the country cannot be considered safe for certain groups, in particular LGBTIQ persons, women, children, members of the Hindu minority, and journalists, who face surveillance, harassment, violence, arbitrary detention, and legal or social discrimination; LGBTIQ persons are criminalised, and women and children experience high levels of gender-based and domestic violence. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Or. en

Amendment 79

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Bangladesh is making significant efforts to tackle smuggling and human trafficking, however efforts are still needed and the EU should engage and provide assistance to the country in this matter. 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. Efforts should be carried out to strongly encourage Bangladesh to sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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.

Or. en

Justification

Bangladesh meets the objective criteria for designation as a safe country of origin, as demonstrated by the very low EU-wide recognition rate and the absence of systematic persecution or indiscriminate violence. Removing Bangladesh from the Union list would undermine consistency, fragment the system through diverging national practices, and weaken the efficiency of asylum procedures.

Amendment 80

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8a) With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 17 Member States currently designate BiH as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from BiH was 1 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. BiH is a parliamentary democracy governed by a constitution outlining the division of executive authority and legislative power, as well as the two entities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of BiH 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. There is no death penalty in BiH. There is no armed conflict taking place in BiH 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.

Or. en

Amendment 81

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

Information provided by the Asylum Agency makes it clear that, although the conflict between the government and the FARC ended in 2016, the general situation in Colombia is marked by the presence of armed groups who continue to operate and expand their presence. There are also several categories of persons at risk of persecution or serious harm. A designation of Colombia as a safe country of origin despite this fact would mean that ‘the concept of safe country of origin would be little more than a fiction’.

Amendment 82

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 83

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 84

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 85

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Recalls that Colombia is one of the main host countries for the millions of Venezuelans that have fled the tyranny of the Maduro Regime; notes however, that under the current administration, the situation has deteriorated; nevertheless, 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.

Or. en

Justification

Colombia has a robust constitutional framework protecting human rights and a very low recognition rate of asylum applications in the EU. Excluding Colombia from the list would contradict objective evidence, encourage national divergence and create unnecessary pressure on asylum systems. The Union list should reflect consistency and legal certainty.

Amendment 86

Damien Carême

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

Amendment 87

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 88

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Information provided by the Asylum Agency makes it clear that since the military coup in 2013, the military have run the country. Military influence extends over economy, politics and general governance. Political participation is significantly restricted. The situation in Egypt currently is thus not one in which there is the application of law within a democratic system as required under Article 61(1) APR.

Amendment 89

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 90

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Egypt is making significant efforts to tackle smuggling and human trafficking, however efforts are still needed and the EU should engage and provide assistance to the country in this matter. 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. Efforts should be carried out to strongly encourage Egypt to sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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.

Or. en

Justification

Egypt has ratified the main international human rights instruments, and asylum recognition rates remain very low across the Union. While challenges exist, they do not amount to systematic persecution or indiscriminate violence within the meaning of the Qualification Regulation. The Union list must be based on objective indicators, not subjective political considerations.

Amendment 91

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10a) With regard to Georgia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 14 Member States currently designate Georgia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Georgia was 4 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. The death penalty has been abolished in 2000 and torture is prohibited by the Constitution of Georgia. There is no armed conflict taking place in Georgia and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. However, in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are not under the effective control of the Georgian government, restrictions on freedom of movement, political participation, and the rights of certain ethnic minorities have been reported. Moreover, recent reports and resolutions warn that Georgia is undergoing serious democratic backsliding, as the government jails opposition leaders, represses protests, undermines judicial independence and adopts reforms that curtail political pluralism and freedom of expression. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Or. en

Amendment 92

Erik Marquardt

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

Amendment 93

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 94

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. India is making significant efforts to tackle smuggling and human trafficking, however efforts are still needed and the EU should engage and provide assistance to the country in this matter. 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. Efforts should be carried out to strongly encourage India to sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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.

Or. en

Justification

India is the world’s largest democracy, has ratified the key international human rights instruments, and the recognition rate of asylum claims from Indian nationals in the EU is extremely low. Its inclusion strengthens the credibility of the Union list, avoids fragmentation, and ensures more efficient asylum procedures.

Amendment 95

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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. In accordance with Article 61(2) of Regulation 2024/1348, clearly identifiable categories of persons shall be excluded from the application of this Regulation, including women and girls, Christians, Muslims, LGBTQI persons, members of lower castes and tribal communities, journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society activists.

Or. en

Amendment 96

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. However, it is also clear from information provided by the Asylum Agency that certain identifiable categories of persons may be at risk of serious harm and/or risk of persecution. These categories include scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, Muslims and victims of gender-based violence.

Or. en

Justification

While India may in general be safe, information provided by the Asylum Agency identifies distinct categories of persons which may well be at risk of either persecution and/or serious harm. In accordance with Article 61(2) APR, the designation of India as a safe country of origin should be made with an exception for those clearly identifiable categories of persons

Amendment 97

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11a) With regard to Moldova, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 7 Member States currently designate Moldova as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Moldova was 1 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Moldova 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 Moldova 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 Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. There is no death penalty, and torture is prohibited by the Constitution of Moldova. There is no armed conflict taking place in Moldova and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. However, in the Transnistria region, which is not under the effective control of the Moldovan government, restrictions of fundamental freedoms have been reported. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Or. en

Amendment 98

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11b) With regard to Montenegro, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 17 Member States currently designate Montenegro as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Montenegro was 1 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Montenegro is a parliamentary and presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Montenegro 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. There is no death penalty and Montenegro has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Montenegro 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.

Or. en

Amendment 99

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Sandro Ruotolo, Alessandro Zan, Marco Tarquinio

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

According to information provided by the Asylum Agency, there is an on-going territorial dispute in relation to the Western Sahara. There are several categories of persons at risk of persecution or serious harm such that were Morocco to be designated as a safe country of origin ‘the concept of safe country of origin would be little more than a fiction’.

Amendment 100

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 101

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 102

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Morocco is making significant efforts to tackle smuggling and human trafficking, however efforts are still needed and the EU should engage and provide assistance to the country in this matter. 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. Efforts should be carried out to strongly encourage Morocco to sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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.

Or. en

Justification

Morocco has ratified key international human rights treaties, maintains a moratorium on the death penalty and presents no evidence of systematic persecution within the meaning of EU law. The very low recognition rate in Member States supports its inclusion. Excluding Morocco would undermine the coherence and effectiveness of the Union list.

Amendment 103

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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. However, the country cannot be considered safe for certain groups, in particular political activists, Sahrawi, and LGBTIQ persons, who face restrictions on freedoms, harassment, arbitrary detention, and in the case of LGBTIQ persons, criminalisation of same-sex relations with prison sentences of up to three years. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Or. en

Amendment 104

Fabienne Keller

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. In accordance with Article 61(2) of Regulation 2024/1348, clearly identifiable categories of persons shall be excluded from the application of this Regulation, including women and girls, Black Moroccans, LGBTQI persons, journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society activists.

Or. en

Amendment 105

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) With regard to North Macedonia (MKD), according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 17 Member States currently designate MKD as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from MKD was below 1 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. MKD is a parliamentary republic based on the principle of the separation of powers. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of MKD 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. The death penalty is prohibited under the North Macedonian Constitution. There is no armed conflict taking place in MKD 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.

Or. en

Amendment 106

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12b) With regard to Serbia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 17 Member States currently designate Serbia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Serbia was 1 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. The republic of Serbia is a parliamentary democracy based on the principle of the separation of powers. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Serbia 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. The death penalty is prohibited under the Serbian Constitution. There is no armed conflict taking place in Serbia 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.

Or. en

Amendment 107

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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

Amendment 108

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 109

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Sandro Ruotolo, Alessandro Zan, Francisco Assis, Marco Tarquinio

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Information provided by the Asylum Agency makes it clear that the new Constitution adopted in Tunisia in 2022 undermines the rule of law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the protection of human rights. The system is no longer democratic but autocratic. The situation in Tunisia currently is thus not one in which there is the application of law within a democratic system as required under Article 61(1) APR

Amendment 110

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 111

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Notes that the democratic standards in the country have deteriorated in the recent past. Tunisia is making significant efforts to tackle smuggling and human trafficking, however efforts are still needed and the EU should engage and provide assistance to the country in this matter. 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. Efforts should be carried out to strongly encourage Tunisia to sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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.

Or. en

Justification

Tunisia has a long-standing moratorium on the death penalty, has ratified the Convention against Torture, and shows no evidence of generalised violence or systematic persecution. The low recognition rate of asylum applications confirms the assessment. Its inclusion in the Union list is necessary to ensure consistency and credibility across Member States.

Amendment 112

Jaroslav Bžoch, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13a) With regard to Armenia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 8 Member States currently designate Armenia as a safe country of origin at national level and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Armenia was between 5 to 10 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Armenia is a parliamentary republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Armenia 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. Armenia has abolished death penalty in its national law already in 2003 and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty in 2021. Armenia has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Although tensions remain high in Nagorno-Karabakh, there is currently no armed conflict taking place in Armenia 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.

Or. en

Amendment 113

Nicolas Bay

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13a) According to the European Union Agency for Asylum, 10 of the EU+ countries currently regard Algeria as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Algeria was 9 % in 2023. Algeria has ratified the main international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified on 16 December 1966, and the Convention against Torture, ratified on 12 September 1989. Algeria is a constitutional semi-presidential republic. There is no indication of an armed conflict in the country, and there is therefore no threat from related violence. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Algeria 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. Finally, as the country is a party to the Convention against Torture, the obligations enshrined in the Convention have been imposed on the authorities since its ratification, in particular the principle of non-refoulement.

Or. fr

Amendment 114

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13a) With regard to Algeria, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 10 Member States currently designate Algeria as a safe country of origin at national level and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Algeria was 7 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Algeria is a presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Algeria 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. Algeria 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. Algeria has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Algeria 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.

Or. en

Amendment 115

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13a) With regard to Guinea-Bissau, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Guinea-Bissau was low in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments and there is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Guinea-Bissau has abolished the death penalty and has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Guinea-Bissau has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Guinea-Bissau 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.

Or. en

Amendment 116

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13b) With regard to Cape Verde, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 4 Member States currently designate Cape Verde as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Cape Verde was 0 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Cape Verde is a semi-presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Cape Verde 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. Cape Verde has abolished the death penalty and has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Cape Verde has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Cape Verde 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.

Or. en

Amendment 117

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13b) With regard to Guinea, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Guinea was low in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Guinea 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 as government is taking real steps to identify and punish officials who commit human rights abuses. Guinea has abolished the death penalty and has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Guinea 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.

Or. en

Amendment 118

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13c) With regard to Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire), according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 1 Member State currently designate Côte d’Ivoire as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Côte d’Ivoire was 22 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Côte d’Ivoire is a presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Côte d’Ivoire 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. Côte d’Ivoire has abolished the death penalty and has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Côte d’Ivoire has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Côte d’Ivoire 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.

Or. en

Amendment 119

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13c) With regard to Mauritania, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Mauritania was low in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Mauritania 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. Mauritania has not abolished the death penalty but maintains a de facto moratorium since 1987. Mauritania has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Mauritania 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.

Or. en

Amendment 120

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13d) With regard to Gambia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 4 Member States currently designate Gambia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Gambia was below 8 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Gambia is a presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Gambia 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. Gambia has abolished the death penalty and has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Gambia has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Gambia 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.

Or. en

Amendment 121

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13e) With regard to Ghana, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 14 Member States currently designate Ghana as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Ghana was below 8 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Ghana is a presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Ghana 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. Ghana 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. Ghana has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Ghana 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.

Or. en

Amendment 122

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13f) With regard to Peru, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 1 Member State currently designate Peru as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Peru was 4 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Peru is a presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Peru 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. Peru has abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes, although it retains the death penalty for crimes committed in time of war and has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty, with a reservation for wartime. Peru has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Peru 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.

Or. en

Amendment 123

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13g) With regard to Senegal, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 12 Member States currently designate Senegal as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Senegal was 9 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Senegal is a semi-presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Senegal 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. Senegal has abolished the death penalty and has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the abolition of the death penalty. Senegal has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Senegal 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.

Or. en

Amendment 124

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 13 h (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13h) With regard to Sri Lanka, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 2 Member States currently designate Sri Lanka as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Sri Lanka was below 15 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Sri Lanka is a semi-presidential republic. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Sri Lanka 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. Sri Lanka has observed a moratorium on the application of the death penalty since 1976, 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. Sri Lanka has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Sri Lanka 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.

Or. en

Amendment 125

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 provides for the possibility to designate third countries as safe countries of origin at Union level in accordance with the conditions laid down in that Regulation.

(14) Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 provides for the possibility to designate third countries as safe countries of origin at Union level in accordance with the conditions laid down in that Regulation. Given the larger impact of a designation as safe at the Union level, a third country should not be designated as safe at the Union level 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 5 %.

Or. en

Amendment 126

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 127

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) 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, Tunisia, Algeria, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Ghana, Peru, Senegal and Sri Lanka as well as Kosovo as potential candidate for membership of the Union, as also shown by the very low recognition rates, it can be concluded that those countries satisfy the criteria to be considered safe countries of origin within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and they should be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. This is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to designate other third countries as safe countries of origin at national level and to the possible future designation of additional third countries as safe countries of origin at Union level by means of future amendments to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

Or. en

Amendment 128

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. Adding these countries to the list of designated safe countries of origin should be met with increased cooperation in migration management in order to ensure fair and legal migration, to combat smuggling and human trafficking of human beings.

Or. en

Amendment 129

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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 Albania, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, India, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, and Serbia, as well as Kosovo as potential candidate for membership of the Union, they should be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level apart from the specific categories listed in Annex II.

Or. en

Amendment 130

Francisco Assis

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Considering that there is, in general, no risk of persecution or serious harm, within the meaning of Regulation 2024/1347, in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, India, Morocco, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, they should be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. Where necessary, the designation should be made with exceptions for specific parts of the territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons.

Or. en

Amendment 131

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 132

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Sandro Ruotolo, Alessandro Zan, Marco Tarquinio

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Considering that there is, in general, no risk of persecution or serious harm, within the meaning of Regulation 2024/1347, in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, India, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, they should be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. Where necessary, the designation should be made with exceptions for specific parts of the territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons.

Or. en

Amendment 133

Erik Kaliňák

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. sk

Amendment 134

Sebastian Tynkkynen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fi

Amendment 135

Jaroslav Bžoch, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 136

Fabienne Keller

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 India and Morocco, 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.

Or. en

Amendment 137

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Considering that there is at present no risk of persecution or serious harm, within the meaning of Regulation 2024/1347, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Kosovo, they may be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. This designation shall be regularly reviewed, as required by Article 62 (2) of the Asylum Procedures Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 138

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16a) Highlights that the designation of countries as safe country of origin within the framework of this regulation will enable the Union to quickly identify in the process those who are eligible for asylum and those that are not, allowing resources to reach more quickly those cases that are truly deserving of international protection.

Or. en

Amendment 139

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Mariusz Kamiński, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Maciej Wąsik

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.

deleted

Or. pl

Justification

To avoid repetition. The content of recital 17 is already adequately covered by recital 3.

Amendment 140

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) The premise of safe countries of origin should only be applied in the context of full adherence to the principle of non-refoulement and after an asylum application has been individually examined and the applicant has been able to access the full range of services and resources available to all applicants in the asylum procedure. In that context, special attention should be paid to applicants who are in a specific situation in those countries, such as LGBTIQ persons, women and in particular victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious minorities, victims of torture, members of the opposition and journalists. Member States should be aware that for some minority groups such as LGBTIQ, claiming to belong to this minority as part of the asylum process can in itself be enough to put these individuals at risk in their country of origin. Therefore, there should be no burden of proof on applicants to demonstrate or give evidence that they belong to a vulnerable or minority group, especially where such burden of proof violates a person's dignity. The right of applicants to an effective remedy in the case of a negative decision should be guaranteed.

Or. en

Amendment 141

Erik Marquardt

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, given an effective opportunity and access to all relevant information necessary to do so, 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. Where a third country cannot be considered as safe for multiple categories of people, this precludes the designation of that country as safe.

Or. en

Amendment 142

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 minors, LGBTIQ persons, people with disabilities, victims of gender-based violence, social leaders and human rights defenders, environmental and land restitution leaders, religious and ethnic minorities, journalists, political activists, and stateless persons.

Or. en

Justification

The list of applicants who need special attention should also reflect categories of persons identified by the Asylum Agency in the information it provided as being at risk. This list must also include exceptions to the safe country of origin designation as identified in the annex

Amendment 143

Susanna Ceccardi, Nikola Bartůšek, António Tânger Corrêa, Fabrice Leggeri, Marieke Ehlers, Tom Vandendriessche, Roberto Vannacci, Anna Maria Cisint, Pascale Piera, Petra Steger, Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Alexandre Varaut

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 144

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 145

Sebastian Tynkkynen

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 submit valid evidence that they are in a specific situation in those countries, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious minorities and journalists.

Or. fi

Amendment 146

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 147

Erik Kaliňák

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. sk

Amendment 148

Milan Uhrík

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 victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious minorities and journalists.

Or. en

Amendment 149

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17a) Highlights the importance of the Pact on Migration and Asylum 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 controlling the external border and providing humane protection to those who genuinely need it. Therefore, the swift application of the parts of the Pact on Migration and Asylum that can already be applied is of the utmost importance.

Or. en

Amendment 150

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17b) Highlights that the purpose of the Border Procedure is to relieve the system of the burden of processing, through asylum procedures, cases that are really those of economic migrants. The goal is to offer better and faster protection to those who are entitled to international protection, by identifying them early within the system.

Or. en

Amendment 151

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

Justification

No justification has been provided as to why these specific provisions of the Pact on Asylum and Migration should be applied sooner than other provisions of the Pact, such as those on the provision of legal aid in APR, those on the application of the solidarity provisions in AMMR, or those on access to the labour market in the RCD. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the legislative process will be complete in time to allow for application of these provisions before June 2026.

Amendment 152

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 153

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 154

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 155

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Mariusz Kamiński, Joachim Stanisław Brudziński, Maciej Wąsik

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 42(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.

Or. pl

Amendment 156

Damien Carême

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 157

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 158

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 159

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) In order to take into account complex and evolving situations in third countries, Member States should have the possibility to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of a third country as a safe country of origin or as a safe third country, including with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or for clearly identifiable categories of persons, before Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 starts to apply, in a reasonable manner as not to go against the objective of this regulation. This flexibility ensures that Member States can react rapidly to differentiated risks while maintaining overall consistency with the Union framework.

Or. en

Justification

Member States need the flexibility to adjust their national designations of safe countries of origin in line with evolving realities on the ground. Allowing them to introduce or apply such designations earlier than the general date of application, and to differentiate by regions or categories of persons when appropriate, ensures that the system remains both credible and adaptable. This option prevents delays and enhances the effectiveness of asylum management, while safeguarding consistency with the Union list.

Amendment 160

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

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 clearly identifiable categories of persons, such as LGBTIQ persons, political activists, journalists, religious or ethnic minorities, stateless persons or women, before Regulation 2024/1348 starts to apply.

Or. en

Amendment 161

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

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, the EU, when applying or introducing legislation that allows for the 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. These exceptions should be specified in the Annex of this Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 162

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.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 163

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 164

Erik Marquardt

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 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 165

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, 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

Justification

Tabled for consistency purposes

Amendment 166

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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 the advancement of the application of related provisions to ensure their immediate practical effect, 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

Justification

The functioning of the Union list requires not only consistency but also timely implementation. Weakening the role of the Union would risk fragmentation and undermine the credibility of the safe country of origin concept. Stressing the Union’s competence and the need for immediate practical effect ensures that the Regulation delivers tangible results and strengthens the efficiency of asylum and return policies across all Member States.

Amendment 167

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20a) The Commission shall continuously review and expand the list. According to the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA) as of 2024, 37 third countries had asylum recognition rates of 20 % or lower across the EU.

Or. en

Amendment 168

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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 respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, while ensuring a balanced implementation that also upholds the Union’s objective of maintaining credible asylum procedures, effective migration management and the protection of the external borders.

Or. en

Justification

The safe country of origin concept is designed to respect fundamental rights while at the same time ensuring that asylum procedures remain credible and efficient. A balanced approach is essential: safeguarding individual rights must go hand in hand with the Union’s responsibility to manage migration effectively and to protect its external borders. Over-emphasising only one side of this balance would risk undermining both the credibility and sustainability of the EU asylum system.

Amendment 169

Erik Marquardt

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 fundamental rights and observe the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and relevant international law.

Or. en

Amendment 170

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 should be applied in full respect of international law and the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

Or. en

Amendment 171

Damien Carême

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 should be applied in full respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Or. en

Amendment 172

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

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 respects of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Or. en

Amendment 173

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 should be amended accordingly.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 174

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 61 – paragraph 5a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(-1) Article 61 is amended as follows:

(a) the following paragraph is inserted:

(5a) In assessing whether a third country fulfils the conditions to be considered a safe country of origin in accordance with this article, Member States may take into account whether that country is included in a Union or national list of safe third country as referred to in Article 59 of this Regulation.

Or. en

Amendment 175

Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 61 – paragraph 2

Present text

Amendment

(-1) Article 61, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

2. The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin both at Union and national level may be made with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons.

‘2. The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin both at Union and national level may be made with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons. An individual assessment for each applicant from a safe country of origin shall be carried out.’

Or. en

Amendment 176

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 61 – paragraph 3

Present text

Amendment

(-1a) Article 61, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

3. The assessment of whether a third country is a safe country of origin in accordance with this Regulation shall be based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the Asylum Agency, the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations, and shall take into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303.

‘3. The assessment of whether a third country is a safe country of origin in accordance with this Regulation shall be based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the Asylum Agency, the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations, assessing the situation of those persons in the country, to whom this regulation applies, including stateless persons, and shall take into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303. That assessment shall be based on reliable, verifiable, and up-to-date sources, and it shall be carried out in a transparent manner. The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin shall not be made prior to the completion of such an assessment.’

Or. en

Amendment 177

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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

deleted

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘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:

(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;

(b) 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;

(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.;’

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

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 178

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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

(1) Article 62 is amended as follows:

Or. en

Amendment 179

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

deleted

(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;

(b) 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. en

Amendment 180

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

deleted

(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;

(b) 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. en

Amendment 181

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

deleted

(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;

(b) 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. en

Justification

Amendment 182

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 threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country unless the threat is limited to a specific geographical area and effective protection is available in another part of that country;

Or. en

Amendment 183

Sebastian Tynkkynen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation 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 an immediate, 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. fi

Amendment 184

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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, credible 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. en

Amendment 185

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(aa) For the purposes of point (a), the activation of temporary protection pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC in respect of that country shall be considered sufficient to establish the existence of such a threat.

Or. en

Amendment 186

Tomas Tobé

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) For the purposes of point (b), the Commission shall compile and maintain a consolidated registry of all restrictive measures adopted in respect of third countries and shall make it available to Member States. The Commission shall inform Member States whenever a new restrictive measure is adopted, amended, suspended or repealed in respect of such countries.

Or. en

Amendment 187

Jaroslav Bžoch

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 % of the total number of decisions for that third country issued by the determining authority, according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data.;

Or. en

Amendment 188

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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, or other credible sources.

Or. en

Amendment 189

Sebastian Tynkkynen

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 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 30 % according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data.

Or. fi

Amendment 190

Erik Marquardt

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;

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

(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;

(b) 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;

(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 5 % according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data.’;

Or. en

Amendment 191

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;

1a. The third countries listed in Annex II shall be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, with exceptions for those specific parts of their territories and for those clearly identifiable categories of persons listed therein;

Or. en

Justification

In accordance with Article 61(2) APR, where necessary, exceptions for specific parts of territories and for clearly identifiable categories of persons should be made. These are detailed in the proposed Annex II.

Amendment 192

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

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;

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

Or. en

Amendment 193

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation 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;

1a. The third countries listed in Annex II and Annex I a shall be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 61;

Or. en

Amendment 194

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1aa(new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1aa. the following paragraph 1b is inserted:

for the purposes of designating countries as safe countries of origin at Union level, paragraph 2 of Article 61 shall not apply;

Or. en

Amendment 195

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 2

Present text

Amendment

(ba) 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 shall review the situation in third countries that are designated as safe countries of origin at least once a year and in the event of significant changes in the situation of a third country in accordance with Article 63(1), with the assistance of the Asylum Agency and on the basis of the other sources of information referred to in Article 61(3).’

Or. en

Amendment 196

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(bb) The following paragraph 3a is inserted:

‘3a. The designation as a safe country of origin of each third country under Annex II, as well as each candidate country under Annex I a, shall take place in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. The same rule shall apply to the removal from the lists of safe countries of origin under Annex II and Annex I a.’;

Or. en

Amendment 197

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 64

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) Article 64 is replaced with the following text:

Designation of third countries as safe third countries at national level

1. Member States may retain or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of safe third countries other than those designated at Union level for the purpose of examining applications for international protection.

2. Where the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level has been suspended pursuant to Article 63(1), Member States shall not designate that country as a safe third country at national level.

3. Where the designation of a third country as a safe third country at Union level has been suspended in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, a Member State may notify the Commission that it considers that, following changes in the situation of that country, it again fulfils the conditions set out in Article 59(1).

The notification shall include a substantiated assessment of the fulfilment by that country of the conditions set out in Article 59(1), including an explanation of the specific changes in the situation of the third country which make that country fulfil those conditions again.

Following the notification, the Commission shall request the Asylum Agency to provide it with information and analysis on the situation in the third country.

The notifying Member State may only designate that third country as a safe third country at national level, if the Commission does not object to that designation.

The Commission's right of objection shall be limited to a period of two years after the date on which that third country's designation as a safe third country at Union level has been removed. Any objection by the Commission shall be issued within a period of three months after the date of each notification by the Member State and after due review of the situation in that third country, having regard to the conditions set out in Article 59(1) of this Regulation.

Where it considers that those conditions are fulfilled, the Commission may submit a proposal in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this Regulation to designate that third country as a safe third country at Union level.

4. Member States shall notify the Commission and the Asylum Agency of the third countries that are designated as safe third countries at national level by 12 June 2026 and immediately after each designation or change to designations. Member States shall inform the Commission and the Asylum Agency once a year of the other safe third countries to which the concept is applied in relation to specific applicants as referred to in Article 59(4), point (b).

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 198

Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation

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

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1a) The European Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the functioning of the Union list of safe countries of origin, its impact on asylum procedures and return rates, and the cooperation of listed countries in readmission and migration management every two years.

Or. en

Amendment 199

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 1

Present text

Amendment

(1a) Article 63, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

1. In the event of significant changes in the situation of a third country which is designated as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level, the Commission shall conduct a substantiated assessment of the fulfilment by that third country of the conditions set out in Article 59 or 61 and, where the Commission considers that those conditions are no longer met, it shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 74 to suspend the designation of that third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level for a period of six months.

‘1. In the event of significant changes in the situation of a third country which is designated as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level, the Commission shall conduct a substantiated assessment of the fulfilment by that third country of the conditions set out in Article 59 or 61 and, where the Commission considers that those conditions are no longer met, it shall adopt a delegated act under an urgency procedure in accordance with Article 74 (6a new) to suspend the designation of that third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level for a period of six months.’

Or. en

Amendment 200

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 61 – paragraph 2

Present text

Amendment

(1a) Article 61, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2. The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin both at Union and national level may be made with exceptions for clearly identifiable categories of persons.’

Or. en

Amendment 201

Tomáš Zdechovský

Proposal for a regulation

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

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1b) The European Commission shall, at least once per year, in cooperation with Member States and the European Union Agency for Asylum, assess whether the conditions for designation under this paragraph remain fulfilled, and where appropriate propose to amend the list accordingly.

Or. en

Amendment 202

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

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

Regulation 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 3

Present text

Amendment

(1b) Article 63, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

3. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 1 suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level, it shall, within three months of the date of adoption of that delegated act, submit a proposal, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this Regulation to remove that third country’s designation as a safe third country or of safe country of origin at Union level.

‘3. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 1 suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level, it shall, within five months of the date of adoption of that delegated act, submit a proposal, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this Regulation to remove that third country’s designation as a safe third country or of safe country of origin at Union level.’

Or. en

Amendment 203

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 4

Present text

Amendment

(1c) Article 63, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

4. Where the Commission has not submitted a proposal as referred to in paragraph 3 within three months of the adoption of the delegated act as referred to in paragraph 1, the delegated act suspending the third country from its designation as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level shall cease to have effect. Where the Commission submits such a proposal within three months of the adoption of the delegated act as referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall be empowered, on the basis of a substantiated assessment, to extend the validity of that delegated act for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew that extension once.

‘4. Where the Commission has not submitted a proposal as referred to in paragraph 3 within five months of the adoption of the delegated act as referred to in paragraph 1, the delegated act suspending the third country from its designation as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level shall cease to have effect. Where the Commission submits such a proposal within five months of the adoption of the delegated act as referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall be empowered, on the basis of a substantiated assessment, to extend the validity of that delegated act for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew that extension once.’

Or. en

Amendment 204

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 d (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 74 – paragraph 6

Present text

Amendment

(1d) Article 74, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

6. A delegated act pursuant to Articles 60, 62 or 63 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

‘6. A delegated act pursuant to Articles 60 or 62 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.’

Or. en

Amendment 205

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 e (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 74 – paragraph 6a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1e) In Article 74 the following paragraph 6a is inserted:

‘6a. A delegated act pursuant to Article 63 shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed. Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 74(6). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act immediately following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or by the Council.’

Or. en

Amendment 206

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 79

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Article 79 is amended as follows:

deleted

(a) in paragraph 2 the following subparagraph is added:

‘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.;’

‘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 207

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU)2024/1348

Article 79

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Article 79 is amended as follows:

deleted

(a) in paragraph 2 the following subparagraph is added:

‘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 208

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 79

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) Article 79 is amended as follows:

deleted

(a) in paragraph 2 the following subparagraph is added:

‘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 209

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation 2024/1348

Annex II

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.;

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 210

Reinhold Lopatka, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Winzig, Sophia Kircher, Alexander Bernhuber

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. In addition, Member States may apply Article 62 concerning the designation of safe countries of origin from the day of entry into force of this Regulation, prior to the general date of application.;

Or. en

Justification

The amendment clarifies that Member States should have the possibility to apply Article 62 concerning the designation of safe countries of origin immediately upon entry into force of this Regulation, without having to wait for the general date of application. This ensures legal certainty and allows Member States to respond swiftly to migratory pressures by making use of accelerated procedures linked to the safe country of origin concept, while respecting the general framework of the Regulation.

Amendment 211

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation 2024/1348

Article 79 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 212

Marco Tarquinio, Sandro Ruotolo, Francisco Assis, Alessandro Zan, Cecilia Strada

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 79

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.;

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 213

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) the text in the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex II.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 214

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II and Annex I a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) the text in the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex II.

(3) the texts in the Annexes to this Regulation are added as Annex II and Annex I a.

Or. en

Amendment 215

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 61, paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

'2. The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin at Union level may be made with exemptions for specific parts of the territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons.'

Or. en

Justification

To provide a clear added value to an EU list of SCO, to ensure that Member States approach to SCO is coherent and harmonised, and to avoid divergent practices leading to ever-expanding differences in handling applications for asylum, national lists should no longer be necessary once a European list has been created

Amendment 216

Cecilia Strada

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 63 is amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph 1 the following subparagraph is added:

In the event of significant changes in the situation of a third country which is designated as a safe country of origin at Union level in Annex II, where the Commission considers - on the basis of the substantiated assessment referred to in the first subparagraph - that the conditions set out in Article 61 are met but that additional exceptions for specific parts of the territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons should be made for that third country, or that the list of exceptions in Annex II should be changed, it shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 74 to include those additional exceptions or those changes.

Or. en

Justification

If exceptions are introduced to the countries listed in the Annex in accordance with Article 61(2), then power must be delegated to the Commission to allow it to propose to add or remove exceptions where this is justified following a substantiated assessment

Amendment 217

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 2

deleted

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in accordance with the Treaties.

Or. en

Amendment 218

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This Regulation shall apply from 12 June 2026.

Or. en

Amendment 219

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1 a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex I a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Annex I a

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

Albania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Georgia (provided that the Commission requests the EU Asylum Agency to provide a previous assessment for this country to be considered for designation as safe country of origin at Union level)

Moldova (provided that the Commission requests the EU Asylum Agency to provide a previous assessment for this country to be considered for designation as safe country of origin at Union level)

Montenegro

North Macedonia

Serbia

Or. en

Amendment 220

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

ANNEX II

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 221

Damien Carême

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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

deleted

Bangladesh

Colombia

Egypt

India

Kosovo*

Morocco

Tunisia

Or. fr

Amendment 222

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Senegal

Or. en

Justification

The proposal mentions an asylum acceptance rate under 20 %, but does not apply it; only 7 countries with asylum acceptance rates of less than 5 % are mentioned; So we want to add countries with an asylum acceptance rate under 20 %.

Amendment 223

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Peru

Or. en

Justification

The proposal mentions an asylum acceptance rate under 20%, but does not apply it; only 7 countries with asylum acceptance rates of less than 5% are mentioned; So we want to add countries with an asylum acceptance rate under 20%.

Amendment 224

Milan Uhrík

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Turkey

Or. en

Justification

Amendment 225

Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bangladesh

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 226

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bangladesh

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 227

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bangladesh

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 228

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bangladesh

Bangladesh (with the exclusion of LGBTIQ persons, women, children, members of the Hindu minority, and journalists)

Or. en

Amendment 229

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Colombia

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 230

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Colombia

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 231

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Colombia

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 232

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Albania

Or. en

Amendment 233

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Or. en

Amendment 234

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Montenegro

Or. en

Amendment 235

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

North Macedonia

Or. en

Amendment 236

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Egypt

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 237

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Egypt

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 238

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Egypt

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 239

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

India

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 240

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

India

India (with the exclusion of women and girls, Christians, Muslims, LGBTQI persons, members of lower and castes and tribal communities, journalists, human rights defenders and civil society activists)

Or. en

Amendment 241

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

India

except for the following categories of persons:

Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes;

Muslims;

Victims of gender-based violence

Or. en

Amendment 242

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Sandro Ruotolo, Alessandro Zan, Marco Tarquinio

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Morocco

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 243

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Morocco

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 244

Fabienne Keller

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Morocco

Morocco (with the exclusion of women and girls, Black Moroccans, LGBTQI persons, journalists, human rights defenders and civil society activists)

Or. en

Amendment 245

Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Morocco

Morocco (with the exclusion of political activists, Sahrawi, and LGBTIQ persons)

Or. en

Amendment 246

Cecilia Strada, Murielle Laurent, Matjaž Nemec, Birgit Sippel, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Ana Catarina Mendes, Alessandro Zan, Francisco Assis, Marco Tarquinio

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Tunisia

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 247

Fabienne Keller, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Tunisia

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 248

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Tunisia

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 249

Erik Marquardt

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Montenegro,

North Macedonia,

Or. en

Amendment 250

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Algeria

Or. en

Amendment 251

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire)

Or. en

Amendment 252

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Gambia

Or. en

Amendment 253

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Ghana

Or. en

Amendment 254

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Peru

Or. en

Amendment 255

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Senegal

Or. en

Amendment 256

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Sri Lanka

Or. en

Amendment 257

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation EU 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

– Cape Verde

Or. en

Amendment 258

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Guinea-Bissau

Or. en

Amendment 259

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Guinea

Or. en

Amendment 260

Jorge Buxadé Villalba, Marieke Ehlers, Alexandre Varaut, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Mauritania

Or. en

Amendment 261

Jaroslav Bžoch, António Tânger Corrêa, Nikola Bartůšek

Proposal for a regulation

Annex 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Armenia

Or. en