On Thursday, 10 April, the advocate general of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) stated in his opinion (Joined Cases C-758/24 and C-759/24) that a Member State may designate ‘safe countries of origin’ by means of a legislative act but must disclose, for the purpose of judicial review, the sources of information on which that designation is based.
In particular, the advocate general found that a Member State—in this case, Italy, which signed decrees in 2024 to launch its protocol on asylum with Albania—may also, under certain conditions, grant a third country the status of ‘safe country of origin’ while identifying limited categories of persons likely to be exposed to a risk of persecution or serious harm in that country.
While the European Commission is currently in the process of preparing an initial common list of ‘safe third countries of origin’ (it will also soon be revising the ‘safe third country’ concept), this interpretation seems to contradict a CJEU ruling from the end of 2024 (see EUROPE 13497/16), which specified that a third country could only be designated as a ‘safe country of origin’ for its nationals if this safety could be established throughout the entire territory of the country in question.
In his opinion, the advocate general himself acknowledges that the solution proposed on 10 April “seems to contradict” the fact that the court has been against territorial exceptions.
He mentioned how Italy designated a list of ‘safe countries of origin’ by means of a legislative act in 2024. Two Bangladeshi nationals, who had been transferred to a detention centre in Albania, applied for asylum; their application was examined by the Italian authorities under the accelerated border procedure but was rejected as unfounded, since their country of origin was considered ‘safe’. They disputed the decision.
In accordance with Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, Member States may expedite the examination of applications for international protection and may conduct such an examination at the border when these applications are submitted by nationals from countries considered as offering sufficient protection.
They may also designate ‘safe countries of origin’ by means of a legislative act, but the national court called upon to examine an appeal against the decision rejecting an application for protection must, in the context of the examination of the legality of that act, have the sources of information on which that designation is based at its disposal.
With regard to the fact that it is possible to designate a third country as a ‘safe country of origin’ when it is not for certain categories of persons, the directive does not prevent a Member State from granting a third country the status of ‘safe country of origin’ while identifying limited categories of persons likely to be exposed to a risk of persecution or serious harm in that country.
The advocate general considers the basic definition of a ‘safe country of origin’ to be “idealistic”, which would result in Member States having “to process all applications submitted by nationals from those countries under the ordinary procedure, even though the vast majority of those applicants would have no real need of protection”. This would have the consequence of encumbering services and lengthening the procedure, which would be detrimental to applicants who truly need protection.
Link to the opinion: https://aeur.eu/f/gdf (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)