Brussels seeks easier exits of asylum seekers from the EU

Euronews

20-05-2025

EU countries will be able to dismiss asylum applications without consideration and transfer asylum seekers far away under a change to the concept of "safe third countries" proposed by the European Commission on Tuesday.
Under the proposal, non-EU nationals requesting asylum could more easily be transferred to a country considered 'safe', where they would be expected to apply for international protection, in a way quite similar to the UK's Rwanda deportation policy that was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.
Member states' authorities may already transfer asylum applicants to a 'third safe country', if this country accepts them and if some provisions are respected.
According to EU rules, a safe third country is a non-EU country where a person seeking international protection is treated according to 'international standards'. Safeguards include the protection of asylum seekers from persecution and serious harm, the respect of the principle of non-refoulement, the possibility to receive effective protection under the Geneva Refugee Convention and the possibility to have access to a functioning asylum system, with education and work permit granted in addition to residence rights.
A good example of the application of the 'third safe country' under current legislation is the 2016 EU-Türkiye statement: an agreement allowing EU countries (in particular Greece) to transfer asylum seekers to Turkish territory.
Until now however some form of connection between the applicant and the third country was required, such as a previous stay or the presence of some family members there, for the transfer to be lawful.
The Commission is now proposing to change that by granting 'more flexibility' to member states when determining how they define a 'third safe country'.
A connection between the applicant and the safe third country will no longer be mandatory, and instead member states will be allowed to designate as safe countries through which the asylum applicant transited en route to Europe.
They will also be able to designate as safe those countries with whom they may strike an agreement. They will then need to notify the Commission of such an agreement though no central list of 'third safe countries' is foreseen at EU level.
In practice, this means that an asylum seeker could end up virtually anywhere, and far from their country of origin or any country with which they are familiar.
The Commission also proposes that appeals brought by asylum seekers against decisions based on the safe third country concept will no longer have the effect of suspending any transfer. Instead applicants whose appeals are successful may return to the member state from which they have been transferred to make an application.
The legislation is a 'targeted amendment' of the Asylum Procedure Regulation that was approved during the last mandate, as a part of the major reform of EU migration policy, the Pact on Migration and Asylum.
'Third countries that are safe must also play their part,' said an EU official during a technical briefing on the matter.
At the moment, only five of the 27 EU member states have developed a list of safe third countries, most of which are within Europe. But the easing of the rules could increase the numbers, especially if third countries strike up a deal to accept transfer agreements.
The proposal now moves to the co-legislators — the European Parliament and the Council, representing the member states — who will each adopt respective positions on the planned changes.
Subsequently, together with the European Commission, the three institutions will work to agree on a common text, which will eventually enter into force.
The European People's Party, the largest group in the European Parliament, said that the proposal 'sends the right message' and 'is a crucial step towards creating an efficient, manageable, and fair asylum system', according to a press release by German MEP Lena Düpont, spokesperson for the group on migration issues.
More opposition is expected from the left wing of the European Parliament. Socialist and democrats, Greens/EFA and The Left group are traditionally against stricter rules on migration.
NGOs are also very sceptical of the proposal. 'This revision would only further weaken access to asylum in Europe, downgrade people's rights, and increase the risk of refoulement and of widespread arbitrary detention in third countries,' said Olivia Sundberg Diez, Amnesty International's EU advocate on migration and asylum.
The Commission conducted no formal impact assessment for the proposal, though it consulted extensively across the member states, the Parliament, the UNHCR and civil society stakeholders, the results of which are presented in a Staff Working Document.
European leaders have been quick to congratulate centrist Nicusor Dan on Sunday's dramatic victory in Romania's presidential election over his hard-right rival George Simion.
Dan won 53.6% of the vote, ahead of Simion, who during the campaign portrayed his movement as championing nationalist values and conservative policies similar to those of US President Donald Trump.
By contrast, Dan — the pro-EU and pro-NATO mayor of Bucharest — had vowed to keep the nation in the European mainstream and maintain support for neighbouring Ukraine. His win is a huge relief for the EU and Ukraine at a time of crucial challenges for Europe.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered support to build "an open and prosperous Romania in a strong Europe". EU Council President Antonio Costa said the result showed "a strong signal of Romanians' attachment to the European project".
Jean-Michel De Waele, a political scientist at the ULB University in Brussels, told Euronews that only time will tell if this proves a setback for European nationalists, but stressed that leaders cannot ignore the anger of the anti-establishment voters.
"There are many problems to be solved. And the citizens of the European Union in this part (of Europe) are not convinced by the EU," he said.
"After all, 46% of Romanian citizens voted for Simion. So the EU can rejoice, but it must not forget and must not say: 'We understood the message, we will change the communication. Business as usual'."
Parallel to Romania, Poland and Portugal went to the polls on what turned out to be the European elections' Super Sunday.
In Poland, pro-European candidate Rafał Trzaskowski won the first round, ahead of conservative Karol Nawrocki. The pair will face each other in a runoff on 1 June.
In Portugal, the ruling centre-right AD alliance won snap parliamentary elections yet fell short of a majority, while the far-right Chega made record gains. Meanwhile, the left-leaning PS lost 20 seats in parliament, resulting in the resignation of party leader Pedro Nuno Santo.
The traditional left-wing parties were in free fall in all three elections. De Waele said that in Romania, the centre-left's lack of support for the pro-EU candidate was a major surprise.
"There is an identity crisis in Europe and the left-wing parties don't have much to offer and don't question themselves much", De Waele explained.
"The Romanian PSD is a member of the Party of European Socialists, which supports democracy, but that is completely insufficient. So I think it shows a lack of direction, a lack of leadership," he added.
In the first round of the Polish presidential elections, two right-wing candidates faced each other without a leftist contender.
According to De Waele, the struggles of the left-of-centre parties in Romania, Poland and Portugal revolve around losing touch with their traditional voters.
"We see this clearly in Portugal. The areas where the Portuguese Communist Party or the left was strong are being eaten up by the far right," De Waele said. "So, they have lost contact with the public, they don't have much to offer in terms of discourse, as a dream, as a social project. And they are in very, very great difficulty."
Lately, German and Hungarian social Democrats have struggled to win over voters against their right-wing or centre-right rivals. This is partly because of a leadership issue, according to De Waele.
"I think we need strong leaders who actually dare to take action. You know, being on the left today is almost a bit shameful. It's as if there were no longer any pride, as if there were no longer a project, as if social democracy had lost its project."
De Waele believes that the crisis of leadership is one cause of the turn many voters towards action-oriented leaders.
"I think citizens are demanding concrete policies, and governments are taking strong positions. That's also why ... Trump is so successful. He's this kind of very virile, very strong populist leader."
"Part of their victory comes from the fact that they say I'm going to do something for you. And I think that, unfortunately, the moderate left or the moderate right are paralysed and don't have any strong proposals," De Waele concluded.