Many civil society organisations have raised the alarm that new EU rules on returns are likely to violate international law, weaken refugee protections, and put lives at risk. These changes seem to be part of a broader effort by the EU to further shift its responsibilities for managing asylum and migration to other countries and regions. We explain why these changes are so concerning, and what the EU should do instead.

The European Parliament's committee on Civil Liberties has reached an agreement on a proposal from the Commission on return rules, called the Return Regulation. This essentially shapes a new EU deportation policy which is likely to result in more criminalisation, raids on communities, and the establishment of detention facilities in non-EU countries – which the EU is calling “return hubs” -  where people risk being exposed to abuse and human rights violations after being deported from EU territory.

The latest changes on ‘safe countries’ are part of the broader Pact on Asylum and Migration, which was adopted in 2024 and which will enter into effect this June 2026. One key file within the Pact, the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), is supposed to facilitate faster processing of asylum requests in the EU. It includes a list of so-called ‘Safe Countries of Origin’ (SCO) and made changes to how so-called ‘Safe Third Countries’ (STC) are identified and used. 

Overall, these changes carry heavy implications for how people who seek asylum in the EU will be treated and how their claims will be considered, with a great risk of misguided outcomes and further harm, including to people who have already experienced great trauma.  

People in vulnerable situations or who are part of marginalised groups may be sent back to countries where they could be in danger. Loved ones may end up being separated or sent to different countries. People may end up in places where their rights and dignity are not protected. These decisions therefore have real consequences for the people, adults and children, who have had their lives uprooted as a consequence of deepening global instability, inequalities and violence. 

What is changing, in a nutshell? 

Two things: 

  1. A common EU list of ’Safe Countries of Origin’ will be the basis on which states decide whether an individual’s asylum claim should be fast-tracked. People from countries on this list will have their asylum claims go through an accelerated procedure with a presumption that they are unlikely to qualify for international protection.
  2. The concept of ’Safe Third Countries’ (consisting of non-EU countries in which the EU considers a person could and should seek protection instead of in the EU) is expanded, making it easier for the EU to refuse to examine claims made in the EU by sending people away. 

Both of these mechanisms shift responsibility away from EU states and onto third countries, denying people seeking asylum the right to have their claims fairly and individually assessed in the EU. 

What does ’Safe Country of Origin’ mean?

The APR creates a common list for all EU states of ‘Safe Countries of Origin’ (SCO), which trumps national lists. 

A ’Safe Country of Origin’ is a country that is presumed safe for its own citizens by the EU, and from which 20% or fewer applicants are granted international protection. The rationale is that, if a country is deemed to be safe, people arriving from there are less likely to need international protection, so their claim can be fast-tracked - and then, most likely, denied.

Worryingly, this accelerated procedure leaves less time for applicants to access information, lawyers, interpreters and support, which makes it harder for people to present complex and sensitive cases (for example, ones that involve gender-based violence or discrimination). This clearly undermines people’s right to have their claim individually assessed, and risks leaving individuals in particularly vulnerable situations at risk of being deported and deprived of the protection they need. 

Countries can also be broadly labeled partially safe “with exceptions”. These exceptions are specific regions (for example, where there is ongoing conflict) or specific categories of people in that country (for example, a religious or ethnic minority) for which the EU acknowledges that they are unsafe. This means that anyone from that country who does not meet the criteria for these "exceptions" will face an expedited process, despite the country clearly not being safe for everyone.

What do the latest decisions change for people coming from so-called ’Safe Countries of Origin’?

While using the accelerated procedure was previously optional, under the new rules, this approach will now need to be applied to all asylum applications from people originating from countries on the EU SCO list. Moreover, while Member States can add countries to their list of SCOs at national level, they cannot consider countries on the common EU SCO list as unsafe and must apply the accelerated procedure in those cases. 

The new rules create an EU common list of SCOs. This currently consists of Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as all countries that are candidates for EU membership (unless specific exceptions apply, such as situations of armed conflict). 

What does ’Safe Third Country’ mean?

A ’Safe Third Country’ is a country in which the EU considers that an applicant could have sought, or should seek, protection instead of applying in the EU. Member States may therefore declare an application inadmissible and refuse to examine the asylum claim, directing the applicant to seek protection in that third country instead. This essentially means that the claim can be rejected without being examined on its merits.  

The criteria for a country to be labelled ‘safe’ are low, as it qualifies any country which applies the Geneva Convention, and provides a vague threshold of “effective protection”. 

Similarly, to the SCOs, third countries can be labelled as partially safe, whereby some regions could be labelled as safe for people to be deported to, while other regions might not be considered safe. 

What do the latest decisions on ’Safe Third Countries’ change for people seeking asylum?

The new rules widen the ways in which the STC concept is used. EU Member States can reject claims and send people to so-called “safe” third countries if any of the following conditions are met: 

  • The applicant has a connection to a ‘Safe Third Country’: Such connections range from having family members in the country, to having previously stayed there, or even merely having perceived cultural links with the country.
  • The applicant is not an unaccompanied child and has transited through a ‘Safe Third Country’ on the way to the EU.
  • The Member State in which the applicant is seeking protection has an agreement with said ‘Safe Third Country’ allowing for asylum claims to be automatically assessed there. 

Moreover, the changes mean that people who appeal their deportation decision could be forcibly sent to these so-called ‘safe’ countries before their case has even been heard in court.

What are the real-life consequences of this new approach to SCOs and STCs for people seeking asylum?

The broadening of the concept of ‘Safe Countries’, the lowering of protection standards, and the removal of the suspensive effect of appeals create grave dangers for people in vulnerable situations. This is an unacceptably high price to pay solely to expedite procedures and facilitate faster removal from EU territories.

The EU itself has identified serious human rights risks in all ’Safe Countries of Origin’, and has created an extensive list of exceptions. However, in practice, once a country acquires the ‘safe’ label, regardless of any fine-print exceptions, processes will be automatic, and decisions will be taken so fast that rebutting the presumption that it is ‘safe’ will be extremely difficult. 

This means that people facing individual risks – including but not limited to LGBTQI+ individuals, human rights defenders, journalists, religious minorities and perceived or actual government critics - could be sent to countries in which their rights to live in safety and dignity cannot be guaranteed in line with EU standards. 

Moreover, by removing the requirement that applicants have a “connection” to a ‘Safe Third Country’, claims can now be rejected solely because the applicant passed through that country or due to agreements between states, without being examined on their own merits. This paves the way for the establishment of so-called “return hubs”, which the IRC and other civil society organisations have also warned are “beset with numerous flaws on practical, legal and moral grounds”.

What should the EU do instead?

The IRC, alongside many other civil society actors, has been urging the EU to change course when it comes to migration and asylum and centre solidarity and dignity, in line with the Union’s fundamental values. 

We call on the EU and all Member States to: 

  1. Ensure protection for all individuals by ensuring that every asylum application is assessed fairly and on its own merits.
  2. Guarantee that no one is deported to a country where they face danger by applying a rigorous standard for what constitutes a "safe country" and ensuring that no one is sent to a country where they have no connection to or support.
  3. Uphold and strengthen the right to asylum in Europe, regardless of how people arrive or where they come from.

A European Union that lives up to its values of respect for human dignity, freedom and respect for human rights, is one that steps up to provide safety and community to people who are fleeing war, persecution, famine and other disasters.