EU states on Monday (23 February) formally endorsed the use of “safe country” designations — in a move that poses serious threats to asylum, says human rights commissioner Michael O’Flaherty.
The council, representing member states, formally adopted the first EU-wide list of safe countries of origin as well as a revision of the safe third country concept.
The safe third country concept allows authorities to refuse asylum to anyone on their way to Europe who first travelled through a country deemed safe enough to offer protection.
Meanwhile, the safe origin list fast-tracks applications from people who come from Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as EU accession candidate countries.
“The idea that you can send somebody or people to another country without individual assessment is a violation of basic refugee law,” O’Flaherty told EUobserver on Monday.
“I’m not against [or] opposed, per se, to lists of safe countries, but that cannot then [have the] consequence of removing basic entitlements from the individuals impacted,” said O’Flaherty.
Human Rights Watch singled out Tunisia earlier this year for rolling back rights, noting that the EU’s engagement with Tunis has had zero impact on curbing violations.
But the broader implications of such lists for countries that want to further offshore asylum by mirroring Italy’s deal with Albania in late 2023 are also raising alarm.
The latest rules, which come into force this June, now allow authorities to designate only parts of a country as safe.
Such restrictions in the past have hamstrung the Italy-Albania deal, which seeks to deport nationals plucked from international waters back home.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has also endorsed the Italy-Albania deal as part of a wider spectrum of so-called “innovative solutions”.
But O’Flaherty says there is nothing innovative about such ideas, citing the US’s Guantanamo Bay military exclave in Cuba, Australia’s Nauru and the UK’s failed €818m bid to offshore asylum in Rwanda.
“One of the most powerful lessons from all of these experiences has been that externalizing migration management is replete with human rights risks,” he said.