This week, Member States’ migration and asylum experts discussed the compromises of the Danish Presidency of the EU Council on the list of ‘safe countries of origin’ (SCOs) and the concept of ‘safe third countries’ (STCs) (see EUROPE 13701/13, 13701/14).
On 3 September, the Commission had also explained to them how it intended to assess the migratory pressure in a country, which would, where necessary, trigger solidarity measures on the part of the other Member States (see EUROPE 13697/12).
With regard to the SCO and STC compromises, the discussion seems to have been more consensual on the list of ‘safe countries of origin’, according to one source. This was a second compromise text and questions were still being asked about certain arrangements, such as the treatment of official EU candidate countries.
On the subject of ‘safe third countries’, however, some countries reportedly expressed their dissatisfaction and would have liked the text, which relaxes the criterion of an asylum applicant’s connection with a third country from which he or she does not originate, but to which he or she could nevertheless be redirected in order to file an application for protection, to go further.
Countries such as Italy may be among those which are dissatisfied. Other delegations are said to have had questions about the treatment of minors, whereas the Danish Presidency seems to have asked Member States, with its first compromise, not to automatically prohibit their transfer to third countries, even though this is not the practice.
Other questions reportedly concerned the arrangements for notifying the Commission and other partners of agreements concluded with third countries to enable these transfers of asylum applicants.
However, these questions would not prevent the two texts from being adopted relatively quickly by the EU Council, possibly still under the Danish Presidency. The Commission’s proposals and the Danish adjustments seem to suit most delegations, one of our sources reported.
‘Returns’. On the other hand, for the returns regulation, for which the reading of all articles was concluded on 10 September, things could take longer, with some people close to the file doubting whether the Danish Presidency will be able to obtain a mandate when it will only be proposing its first compromise by 25 September.
Some do not rule out the possibility that this initial compromise will only be a partial one, as the regulation raises both political and technical issues, such as the mandatory mutual recognition of national return decisions or the establishment of return centres on the basis of agreements with third countries. Countries such as France, for example, have publicly stated their opposition to mandatory mutual recognition decisions.
With regard to return centres, some countries also want further discussions to ensure that such centres are legally viable and in line with the rights of the people who would be transferred there.
Solidarity cycle and migratory pressure criteria. While the Commission will determine on 15 October which countries are under “migratory pressure” or at “risk of migratory pressure” and should benefit from the new solidarity pool under the “Pact on Migration and Asylum” adopted in May 2024, on 3 September it set out the calculation methods for Member States, including criteria based on the number of irregular arrivals, the number of asylum applications, the implementation rate for returns or the size of the country and its GDP.
The Commission has also reportedly suggested that it may take into account rescues at sea carried out by Member States. The definition of these numerical criteria was one of the reasons for the failure of the first reform of the so-called Dublin Regulation, presented in 2016. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)