On Monday 13 October, the draft report by Italian ECR MEP Alessandro Ciriani on the revision of the Asylum Procedures Regulation establishing a list of ‘safe countries of origin’ at EU level received a very positive reception from the EPP and PfE Groups in the European Parliament, but a much more critical response from the S&D, Greens/EFA and Renew Europe Groups (see EUROPE 13728/4).
Under this concept, Member States may refuse to carry out a detailed examination of an asylum application on their territory if the person concerned is a national of a country where his or her life is not in danger or where he or she is not at risk.
The Italian wants to go fast. “It is necessary to restore public confidence, (to) improve cooperation between Member States and (to) ensure that our borders are managed effectively and humanely”, he summarised.
The EPP, represented by Tomas Tobé (Swedish), also welcomed the rapporteur’s work, saying it was “necessary today to ensure a coherent and truly common response to the challenges posed by migration”. The EPP will, however, be tabling amendments to clarify certain mechanisms, but the group also wants to move forward quickly.
The PfE Group also congratulated the rapporteur and welcomed the clarification of a common EU list of ‘safe countries of origin’, “which must not restrict the rights of Member States to adopt their own national lists”. “I also welcome the clarifications provided by the rapporteur on the removal of a country from the list in the event of armed conflict. This withdrawal should only take place when there is a security threat that is not limited to a strict geographical area and when civilians do not have access to protection in another area of the country”, said French MEP Fabrice Leggeri, speaking on behalf of shadow rapporteur Susanna Ceccardi (Italian).
The PfE will make amendments to strengthen the principle of subsidiarity or include other countries.
For Cécilia Strada (S&D, Italian), on the other hand, it is “serious that the Commission has not carried out an impact assessment on fundamental rights”. “Today, in the name of an urgency that does not exist and that we do not share, the Commission has defined certain countries of origin as ‘safe’ on the basis of information that is not exhaustive, that is contradictory, that is not always accurate and, above all, that is neither transparent nor available to the general public”.
“Death penalty, systematic use of torture, persecution of opponents, persecution of minorities, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, ethnic discrimination on the basis of gender” - the MEP cited the reasons why all member countries currently do not recognise the proposed third countries (Colombia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Kosovo, India) as ‘safe countries of origin’. The S&D refuses to rush.
Fabienne Keller, the French rapporteur for Renew Europe, believes that the draft simply reproduces the Commission’s text, without any analysis. “Only six Member States currently recognise Bangladesh and Egypt as ‘safe States’. For India, Morocco and Tunisia, it’s 10 or 11. This is the opposite of the usual pro-European procedure of convergence of analyses”.
The concept of the presumption of safety of the country of origin is also “dangerous”. Tineke Strik (Dutch), for the Greens/EFA, deplored the fact that the burden of proof lies with the asylum seeker and that there are no solid studies to prove that the countries concerned are ‘safe’. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)