The first compromise of the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU on the list of safe third countries of origin (SCO) (see EUROPE 13654/6, 13623/1) has raised a number of questions within the Member States, in particular regarding negative changes in situation in a country designated as a safe country of origin.
In April, the Commission presented this first list of official EU candidate countries, plus Egypt, India, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Morocco, Colombia and Kosovo. The aim was to harmonise and speed up the processing in the EU of asylum applications submitted by nationals of these countries, which were deemed to be probably unfounded.
An EU Council document of 30 June, published in part by the EU Council following an access to information request, sets out the questions raised by France, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland, but does not yet include Italy’s comments.
However, Giorgia Meloni’s government has been rejected several times by the courts, including the Court of Justice of the EU, on the selfsame SCO concept (see EUROPE 13693/2).
France is asking for clarification of the circumstances that can be described as ‘significant changes’ in the situation of a third country. “What criteria will be taken into account to assess the changes in its situation?”
It also wants to know what procedure to apply when adopting the delegated act suspending the designation of a third country as a SCO for a period of six months, and whether the normal asylum procedure should then be applied.
It is asking, as is Slovakia in particular, that the EU candidate countries considered as safe countries of origin be listed by name in the common list, whereas the Commission has chosen not to mention them.
According to Germany, where an element of the response deemed too sensitive for a third country has been deleted, the new versions should clarify the data for India. “Contrary to the information provided by the Commission, India has not ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We ask that the documents be revised accordingly”.
Berlin also wanted clarification on exemptions from the application of the SCO concept and the treatment of unaccompanied minors.
For the Netherlands, it is also a question of how the Commission perceives “the existence of regions where indiscriminate violence is rife and the possible designation of a third country as a safe country of origin? Should these regions be exempt? Can a country where such violence is taking place be considered a safe country of origin even if these regions are exempt?” How “should asylum applications from regions not controlled by the authorities of a safe country of origin be processed?”, asks The Hague.
With regard to Tunisia, whose inclusion on the common list has been criticised by the European Parliament and NGOs, the Netherlands continues to explain its current practice of not applying the SCO concept to the following people: “LGBTQ+ people; people who can plausibly demonstrate that they are targeted by a measure known as S17; journalists, activists and political opponents who have criticised the president and/or the government; people who are the subject of (criminal) proceedings and who can demonstrate concretely that the existing legal guarantees in Tunisia against violations of rights and freedoms are not guaranteed in their individual case”. The Commission has not made these distinctions.
The EU Council’s Expulsion Working Party, which is due to meet again on 4 September, will continue its examination of the new regulation on ‘returns’.
Link to the document: https://aeur.eu/f/i4u (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)