Changes from report parliamentary committee draft to plenary report

The Commission’s proposal to amend Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union as regards the application of the “safe third country” concept is a timely and targeted step to ensure that the Common European Asylum System becomes both credible and workable. It addresses long-standing inconsistencies in the way Member States have applied the concept and responds to calls from national authorities for greater flexibility and legal clarity.

The safe third country concept remains an essential part of international protection policy. It reflects a fundamental principle: those in need of protection should receive it, but not necessarily in the European Union when they could receive effective protection in a third country that is considered safe for them. Over the past decade, however, the practical use of this tool has been hindered by procedural complexity and by diverging interpretations among Member States, particularly concerning the requirement for a “connection” between the applicant and the third country and the automatic suspensive effect of appeals. Both institutional analyses and independent expert assessments conclude that the necessary adjustments can be made without compromising international or Union law.

The first improvement concerns the connection criterion. As recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and confirmed by legal scholarship, international law does not impose a requirement that a personal link exist between an applicant and the country considered safe. While the presence of a connection may facilitate practical cooperation, it is not a precondition for legality. The Commission therefore rightly proposes to make this element optional, thereby granting Member States the flexibility to determine whether and how to apply it, depending on operational circumstances and the existence of cooperation frameworks or arrangements with partner countries.

It must also be borne in mind that the proposal also requires Member States to inform the Commission and other Member States before concluding agreements or arrangements with safe third countries, which will ensure greater transparency, mutual awareness, and ultimately reinforce coordination and coherence in the Union’s external migration management efforts.

This change does not weaken fundamental rights or lower protection standards. On the contrary, it reflects the reality that “connection” has often become an administrative obstacle rather than a safeguard. By maintaining the principle of individual assessment, we make sure that each case will still be examined to confirm that the person concerned can receive effective protection in the third country, including respect for non-refoulement and access to fair procedures. What changes is not the level of protection, but the ability of the Member States to apply the concept consistently and efficiently.

The second improvement concerns the suspensive effect of appeals. Under current rules, an appeal against an inadmissibility decision based on the safe third country concept automatically suspends transfer until a final judgment is delivered. While this safeguard aimed to protect applicants from any risk of refoulement, it has also led to protracted litigation and inconsistent practice across the Union. Removing the automatic suspensive effect, while guaranteeing the applicant’s right to request suspension before a court or tribunal, is intended to put an end to this practice. The judicial authority remains empowered to grant suspensive effect whenever there is a credible risk of refoulement or other irreparable harm.

This balanced approach fully respects Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case-law of both the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Human rights jurisprudence makes clear that the right to an effective remedy does not require automatic suspension in all cases, only that the remedy be capable of producing a suspensive effect when necessary. The proposal thus upholds judicial protection while restoring procedural efficiency. It also prevents situations of legal limbo that have in the past left applicants stranded for months or years in uncertainty, undermining confidence in asylum systems and creating unnecessary administrative burden for Member States.

We need to strengthen coherence between asylum and return procedures, contributing to a more seamless system. By clarifying and streamlining the rules we reinforce partnership-based cooperation with third countries, ensuring that Safe Third Country agreements and arrangements are mutually beneficial, uphold responsibility-sharing principles, and fully respect fundamental rights. It complements the Union’s broader external migration policy, including future return hubs and tailored readmission arrangements, where the concept of effective protection remains central.

The Commission’s proposal stays well within the boundaries of international law and the Geneva Convention. It does not remove safeguards but brings EU law back into proportion. Several elements of the current framework go beyond international requirements (“gold-plating”), and we want to achieve with this revision to simply realign them with the actual legal obligations.

From a political perspective, this draft report represents a concrete contribution to the implementation the Pact on Migration and Asylum. It demonstrates that the Union can act swiftly to remove procedural bottlenecks that have prevented the proper functioning of its asylum system. This is precisely what a firm and fair migration policy requires: procedures that are fast and enforceable, but also legally sound and respectful of fundamental rights.

We want to enhance credibility both internally and externally. We give Member States the tools to manage asylum more effectively while sending a clear message that the EU remains committed to protection needs and ensuring compliance with international obligations to international protection but is determined to curb the misuse of the asylum system and lengthy procedural delay. We also enable faster cooperation with safe partner countries and encourages shared responsibility through structured arrangements.

Our aim is to contribute to the long-term objective of a sustainable European asylum architecture built on solidarity, trust, and predictability. We therefore need this pragmatic correction rather than a conceptual overhaul, ensuring that the safe third country mechanism functions as originally intended, to provide swift, fair, and lawful outcomes for all parties involved.

This is not a lowering of standards but an affirmation of Europe’s capacity to combine principle with practicality. A functioning and credible asylum system is indispensable to maintain public confidence and solidarity among Member States. The safe third country reform represents a concrete step towards that goal and a clear signal that the European Union is able to protect its borders, uphold its values, and deliver results.

In light of the above, the rapporteur considers that the Commission’s proposal requires only targeted refinements to ensure full legal clarity and operational coherence.

When assessing whether a third country qualifies as a safe third country, Member States could take into account the fact that this country is already listed as a safe country of origin at Union or national level. This circumstance can serve as an indicator of the country’s overall stability and respect for human rights.

To ensure that the safe third country concept is applied consistently and effectively, Member States should first consider all available grounds - such as connection, transit or an existing arrangement - before examining an asylum claim on its merits. Only if none of these apply should the procedure continue within the Union.

To ensure consistent application of Union law and avoid divergent practices, the use of EU-level agreements or arrangements with third countries should be encouraged, as they provide a common framework, uphold Union standards, and strengthen mutual trust among Member States.

Unaccompanied minors are exempt from the application of the safe third country concept where it is applied on the basis of an agreement or an arrangement with a safe third country. However, Member States should be allowed to apply the concept on such a basis where there are reasonable grounds to consider that the minor poses a danger to national security or public order. This maintains the balance between protection and security and ensures coherence with existing rules in the border procedure.

Given that uncontrolled risks of absconding would undermine the application of the safe third country concept, Member States should take all necessary measures to prevent such absconding.

Finally, we propose to refine the rules on suspensive effect by clarifying that enforcement may be suspended only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that removal would breach the principle of non-refoulement. This ensures full respect for fundamental rights while avoiding unnecessary procedural delays.

The rapporteur welcomes the Commission’s initiative and supports its swift adoption, with limited clarifications aimed at reinforcing legal certainty and transparency. By embracing flexibility on the connection criterion and endorsing the revised rules on suspensive effect, the European Parliament can help complete a coherent framework that serves both protection and efficiency.