On Wednesday 3 December, the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties approved the reports by German EPP member Lena Düpont on ‘safe third countries’ (STCs) and Italian ECR member Alessandro Ciriani on ‘safe countries of origin’ and the common list of ‘safe countries of origin’ (SCOs).
These texts, which are both revisions of the Asylum Procedures Regulation, adopted in 2024 and not yet in force, were unsurprisingly approved by 40 votes to 32 with 0 abstentions and by 39 votes to 25 with 8 abstentions respectively, in favour of a so-called “Venezuela” majority, namely the EPP, ECR, PfE and ESN (see EUROPE 13759/15).
The respective negotiating mandates were approved by 41 votes to 32 with 0 abstentions, and by 41 votes to 24 with 8 abstentions.
As a reminder, the revision of the safe third country (STC) concept makes it optional for a connection criterion to be taken into account when returning a person whose asylum application has been rejected in the EU to a third country from which he or she does not originate, but which could also offer equivalent protection. This country must always be considered ‘safe’.
The SCO concept authorises Member States to refuse to examine an asylum application in depth on their territory, if the person concerned is a national of a country that does not endanger his or her life or present a risk to them. A joint EU list has been proposed for this purpose (Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, India, Bangladesh, Colombia and Kosovo, not forgetting the official EU candidate countries).
The EPP member’s report added a non-suspensive nature to appeals against a decision of inadmissibility under the STC concept. And on STC, all members of Renew Europe, S&D, Greens/EFA and The Left groups voted against.
The groups that refused to support these two texts deplore the fact that the European Parliament has been weakened by these votes and has become nothing more than a “recording chamber” for the Commission’s proposals, explains a source, while the Italian and German rapporteurs have only marginally modified the original proposals.
The groups also reject this so-called “Venezuela” majority in favour of innovative solutions and this “coalition to support Italian centres in Albania”, says yet another source.
In a press release, the S&D group said that these texts “aim to drastically undermine key elements of the Migration and Asylum Pact (...) Despite persistent engagement with the rapporteurs, the S&Ds maintain strong concerns that the legislation is rushed, will allow member states to unilaterally disapply the right to asylum, and will create a situation where Europe is strategically dependent on foreign governments to manage migration”.
“Given that these proposals seek to fundamentally alter the EU’s asylum rules, they warranted a serious and decent parliamentary process. Instead, the pressure to move forward with these files has been high, despite the fact that asylum applications are at some of their lowest levels in years”, commented Italian Cecilia Strada.
The groups also deplore the lack of impact assessment and the “hypocrisy” of the EPP, which recently supported resolutions condemning the deterioration of fundamental rights in Georgia, Serbia, Turkey and Tunisia, which are all on the list of ‘safe countries of origin’.
Egypt, Tunisia and Bangladesh also have cases of torture, political imprisonment and forced marriages.
Both reports will be submitted to the plenary session in December. The EU Council, for its part, is due to vote on 8 December (see EUROPE 13762/6).
Link to reports: https://aeur.eu/f/jt4 , https://aeur.eu/f/jt5 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)