Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.
EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.
You can find the transcript here if you prefer reading:
Soon, asylum seekers from Bangladesh or Egypt could see their asylum applications in the EU automatically rejected.
This is what the new regulations on safe countries of origin and safe third countries, adopted in February, provide for.
On what criteria does the EU base its decision to classify a country as safe? And are these criteria foolproof?
The European Union is continuing its deterrent migration policy.
As part of the Asylum and Migration Pact, the EU adopted two regulations in February designed to streamline the processing of international protection applications.
How? First, by establishing a list of countries considered safe, which currently includes seven states: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Kosovo, India, Morocco, and finally Tunisia.
Added to these are all EU candidate countries, provided they are not at war, like Ukraine, or under EU sanctions.
What is the direct effect of this list ? Asylum seekers from these countries may have their applications automatically rejected. This is a possibility, not an obligation — because member states receiving the application could still choose to process it under the usual procedure.
Now, why these countries in particular? The European Union looked at the acceptance rate of asylum applications from these states. Since these rates are below 20 percent, the EU deems that the need for protection is unfounded.
To complement this first text, the EU adopted a second regulation creating the concept of safe third countries. This simply means outsourcing asylum applications outside the EU.
Let’s take a concrete example: a Sudanese national arriving in Greece after transiting through Egypt could be sent back to Egypt on the grounds that the country is safe and that they should have applied for asylum there.
People could even be sent to countries they have never set foot in, under agreements concluded by the EU with these states.
The European Union has not pre-defined a list for these safe third countries. However, they must meet the following criteria: Individuals must not fear for their lives there, due to their origin, religion, nationality, or political opinions.
It must be possible to apply for asylum there, and finally, it must be guaranteed that the country will not send the individual back to a state where they risk persecution, torture, or ill-treatment.
So, do these criteria ensure sufficient protection for asylum seekers?
The two regulations do not completely close the door to asylum seekers from the listed countries, as host EU states can still choose to process the application on the one hand, and refugees can appeal a rejection on the other hand.
However, the EU 27 have agreed on accelerating the appeal procedures, which can more easily lead to negative outcomes, as highlighted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The selection of countries considered safe is also being questioned.
The European Union regularly condemns countries that still practice capital punishment. Yet Egypt, which is listed as a safe country of origin, executed no fewer than 15 people last year, according to several Egyptian and international NGOs.
Another example: in Morocco, same-sex relations are illegal and punishable by several years in prison. Nevertheless, the EU considers Morroco a safe country.
These concerns, raised by NGOs and left-wing parties in the EU, were not enough to prevent the adoption of the two texts. In the European Parliament, they were passed thanks to a right-wing to far-right majority.
As for EU member states, they are pleased to now have accelerated asylum procedures at their disposal.
In conclusion, the criteria chosen by the EU are rational but also expedient. They do not account for individual cases where the danger is very real.
In the EU’s view, an asylum acceptance rate of less than 20 percent does not indicate a risk for individuals.
But within that percentage, however small, are people who are genuinely in danger, and whose applications will likely not be processed.
