EU proposes seven safe countries of origin to accelerate migrant returns

The European Commission on Wednesday published a proposal designating seven countries, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia, as safe countries of origin, a legal classification that enables member states to fast‑track asylum applications and, crucially, to deport rejected applicants more swiftly. The list, which can be expanded over time, is the first EU‑wide attempt to harmonise a tool that already exists in national legislation: France, for example, considers Mongolia, Serbia and Cape Verde safe, while Germany and Sweden maintain their own registers. By creating a common baseline, Brussels hopes to end the fragmentation that has allowed asylum seekers to shop for the most favourable jurisdiction.

A harmonised list to speed up asylum decisions

Under the Asylum Procedures Directive, a safe country of origin designation shifts the burden of proof onto the applicant: the authorities start from the presumption that persecution is unlikely, and the asylum seeker must demonstrate concrete reasons why the general assessment does not apply in their case. Individual examinations remain mandatory, but the accelerated procedure shortens deadlines for appeals and reduces the scope for suspensive effect, the automatic right to stay while an appeal is heard. Magnus Brunner, the European Commissioner for Migration, argued that many member states are facing a significant backlog of asylum applications, so anything we can do now to support faster asylum decisions is essential. The Commission says the seven countries were chosen because they account for a significant share of current applications, and because they are not affected by armed conflict, a criterion that excludes Ukraine despite its candidate status.

The proposal also clarifies that EU candidate countries in principle meet the safe country criteria, a formulation that reopens the debate that sank a similar initiative in 2015. At that time, the inclusion of Turkey, then a candidate and now a key partner in the EU‑Turkey statement, proved politically toxic. This time, Turkey is absent from the list, and the Commission has built in an explicit conflict exception. The text allows the list to be reviewed and expanded, a flexibility designed to avoid the deadlock that killed the previous effort.

Political pressure mounts after years of low return rates

The immediate political driver is the persistently low execution rate of return orders. According to EU data, fewer than 20% of people ordered to leave the bloc are actually returned to their country of origin. That figure has barely moved for years, despite successive reforms of the Return Directive. In October 2024, leaders including Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen demanded urgent legislation to increase and speed up returns, and asked the Commission to assess innovative ways to counter irregular migration, code for the controversial idea of external return hubs outside EU territory. Last month the Commission duly presented a reform of the return system that opens the door to such centres, a proposal that has already drawn sharp criticism from the UN refugee agency and the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee.

Irregular border crossings detected by Frontex fell 38% to 239,000 in 2024 after a near‑decade peak in 2023, according to the agency’s annual risk analysis. The drop reflects tighter controls on the Western Balkan route and the effect of the EU‑Tunisia memorandum of understanding, but the political salience of migration has not receded. Hard‑right parties made gains in the European Parliament elections last June, and national governments are under pressure to show results before the next electoral cycle. Italy’s Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi called the safe country list a success for the Italian government, signalling that Rome sees the measure as a vindication of its hard line.

The seven countries: migration flows and human rights records

The selection of the seven countries reflects both migration statistics and diplomatic calculations. Bangladesh and India are among the top ten nationalities lodging asylum claims in the EU, yet recognition rates are low, below 10% for Bangladeshi applicants in most member states. Egypt and Tunisia are major departure points for central Mediterranean crossings, and both have signed migration cooperation agreements with the EU that include readmission clauses. Morocco has a long‑standing readmission agreement and is a partner in border management. Colombia’s inclusion is more surprising: it is not a major source of irregular arrivals, but the EU has sought to deepen ties with Bogotá since the 2016 peace deal, and the country’s visa‑free access to the Schengen area since 2015 has made it a transit point. Kosovo, a potential candidate, has high visa‑free travel rates and a significant diaspora in Germany and Switzerland; its inclusion signals the Commission’s willingness to treat the Western Balkans as a coherent bloc.

Human rights organisations argue that the safe label ignores documented abuses. Egypt has been criticised for arbitrary detention, torture and the suppression of dissent under President Abdel Fattah al‑Sisi. Tunisia’s President Kais Saied has consolidated power, cracked down on migrants from sub‑Saharan Africa and restricted civil society. Bangladesh’s government has used the Digital Security Act to silence critics, and the Rohingya refugee crisis on its border with Myanmar remains unresolved. India’s Citizenship Amendment Act and the situation in Kashmir have drawn international scrutiny. Kosovo still grapples with inter‑ethnic tensions and rule‑of‑law deficits. Morocco’s human rights record in Western Sahara is contested. Colombia, while a democracy, faces ongoing violence from armed groups and high levels of impunity. EuroMed Rights, a network of 80 organisations across the Euro‑Mediterranean region, said the list suffered from documented rights abuses and limited protections for both their own citizens and migrants and warned that labelling them safe is misleading, & dangerous.

Rights groups warn of a dangerous precedent

The core objection is procedural: the safe country presumption creates a rebuttable but powerful barrier. Asylum seekers from listed countries must overcome a legal presumption that their claim is unfounded, often within drastically shortened timeframes and without the automatic suspensive effect that protects against removal while an appeal is pending. In practice, lawyers say, this leads to poorer quality decisions and higher rates of refoulement, the return of people to places where they face persecution. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that accelerated procedures must not undermine the essence of the right to asylum. The Commission insists that individual assessment remains mandatory and that the list does not override the Geneva Convention, but the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has already signalled it will scrutinise the compatibility of the proposal with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

There is also a geopolitical dimension. By declaring partner countries safe, the EU gains leverage in readmission negotiations: a country that refuses to take back its nationals can be threatened with visa restrictions or aid conditionality. The 2023 EU‑Tunisia memorandum, which included €105 million for border management, was explicitly linked to Tunisian cooperation on returns. Critics argue that the safe country list institutionalises a transactional approach that subordinates human rights to migration control. The Commission counters that the designation is based on objective criteria, respect for human rights, democratic institutions, and the absence of widespread persecution, and that the regular review mechanism allows for delisting if conditions deteriorate.

National lists persist alongside the EU baseline

The proposal does not replace national lists. Member states may add countries to the EU baseline but cannot subtract from it. This asymmetry means that a country deemed unsafe by Germany could still be on the EU list, forcing German authorities to apply the accelerated procedure unless they can invoke a national exception, a legally uncertain path. The Commission’s impact assessment acknowledges that divergent national practices have created legal uncertainty for applicants and administrative burden for authorities. Harmonisation is intended to reduce asylum shopping, but it also reduces the flexibility that some states have used to protect vulnerable groups. For instance, Sweden has previously granted protection to Eritrean conscripts despite a general safe country assessment; under the new framework, such nuanced approaches could be harder to sustain.

The legal basis for the list is Article 78(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which allows the adoption of measures for a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection. The ordinary legislative procedure applies: the European Parliament and the Council must agree on a joint text. Given the political sensitivity, the Parliament’s LIBE committee is likely to propose amendments that strengthen safeguards, for example, requiring a periodic human rights review by the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA) before a country can be added. The Council, where member states are split between those demanding faster returns and those wary of rights violations, will need a qualified majority. The file could take 12 to 18 months to conclude.

The legislative path ahead

The next concrete step is the Parliament’s first reading, expected in the autumn. Rapporteurs from the main political groups have already begun drafting opinions. The European People’s Party, the largest group, generally supports the Commission’s approach but wants stronger monitoring. The Socialists and Democrats are likely to push for mandatory individual interviews and a suspensive effect for appeals. The Greens and the Left will argue for the list’s withdrawal. In the Council, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Austria form a core of hawks; Germany, France and Spain occupy a middle ground; while Ireland, Portugal and the Nordic countries (except Denmark) tend to emphasise procedural guarantees. The outcome will shape not only the safe country list but also the broader return reform, including the external hubs proposal.