As the European Commission (EC) unveils its so-called “new common approach on returns” today, 11 March, aimed at speeding up returns to countries of origin and transit, the undersigned civil society organisations (CSOs) raise concerns about the human rights implications that these proposals would entail.
Problems with the Safe Third Country concept
The proposal will probably include a new Return Directive or Regulation, thus replacing the 2018 proposal on the recast of the Directive 2008/115/EC (the Return Directive), provisions on the so-called “return hubs” and the revision of the Safe Third Country (STC) concept.
EuroMed Rights has for long advocated against the concept of “safe third country” and “safe country of origin” as it is contrary to the spirit of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees which provides for the individual examination of each asylum claim: each personal situation is unique, and no country is free from failing to protect individual rights or exempted from human rights violations.
However, countries have increasingly and disproportionately relied on this concept to increase the returns of people seeking asylum in Europe. Italy, for example, updated in 2024 its list of “safe countries of origin” to include Egypt and Tunisia to the list, despite the numerous documented human rights violations perpetrated in both countries and the fact that Egypt, for example, is not a signatory to the UN Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
According to the upcoming revision of the STC concept in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), the undersigned organisations raise concerns on the EU’s willingness to lower the protection threshold provided by a third country and to eliminate the connection criteria.
Lower protection threshold
As part of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in 2024, the APR has already lowered the protection threshold that a third country must provide by introducing the concept of “effective protection,” which is a lower protection than that provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention. This will de facto allow EU Member States (MS) to consider a country that is not part of the Refugee Convention as “safe”.
For example, this could be applied in the context of Lebanon, which is not a signatory of the Convention but is considered “safe” by Cyprus, which has already carried out violent and unlawful refoulements of Syrian asylum seekers. Cyprus has already been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in October 2024 in the case of M.A. AND Z.R. v. CYPRUS (Appl. No 39090/20).
Connection criteria
Despite the fact that UNHCR, in its legal considerations in the context of safe third countries, highlighted the importance of a connection between the asylum seeker and the third country – e.g. previous stays or the presence of family members or close ties in the country – it is highly probable that EU Member States decide to remove the connection criteria in their STC revision.
This will leave a great margin of discretion to MS to return asylum seekers to third countries without having any link whatsoever with that country.
Human rights violations
In many of the countries often considered “safe” and with whom the EU has recently signed controversial agreements aiming at curbing migration, e.g. Tunisia, Lebanon and Egypt, the human rights and rule of law context is rapidly worsening. In Tunisia, the recent elections have sealed the authoritarian grip of the President while the situation for migrants and refugees is alarming, with reports of mass expulsions, hate speech and physical aggressions on the rise.
In Egypt, repression against civil society, human rights defenders and of peaceful dissent online and offline – which affects anyone on Egypt territory -, arbitrary arrests, mass detention and extra-judicial killings remain key concerns. The recently passed national asylum law will vastly worsen an already severe situation for asylum seekers and refugees in the country, where recent arbitrary mass arrests, detention and forced returns of Sudanese refugees, among others, have been documented. In their Communication on the Asylum law in Egypt, the UN Special Procedures raised serious concerns on the impact that the law would have on the human rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and that, “if enacted, would fall significantly short of international human rights and refugee law and other relevant standards”.
In conclusion, what the EU is proposing would be yet another attempt to move further and further away from right-based migration and asylum policies, thus continuing with the externalisation trend that has been a complete failure, such as the recent Italy-Albania deal, and has led to endless suffering, violations and deaths.
Signatories:
- Tamkeen for legal aid and human rights (Jordan)
- ARCI
- İHD – Human Rights Association (Turkey)
- Irídia (Spain)
- Novact (Spain)
- Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
- CEAR
- CNCD- 11.11.11
- Human Rights League (LDH)
- CS-LADDH
- Fondation pour la promotion des droits
- Association tunisienne des Femmes Démocrates (ATFD)
- Centre for Peace Studies Croatia
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
- Safe Passage International
- KISA
- La Fondation pour la promotion des droits
- EuroMed Rights
- CCFD-Terre Solidaire
- LaCimade