Background: The “Safe Third Country” Approach
The article analyzes the concept of the so-called “safe third country” in European asylum law. This concept allows EU states to reject asylum applications as inadmissible if protection seekers could already have received protection in another country.
The concept is part of the European “protection elsewhere” approach, meaning the transfer of protection responsibilities to third countries outside the EU.
The article focuses on how this concept is changing through the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact and what consequences these developments may have for the protection of refugees.
Protection Standards and Non-Refoulement
Under current law, a third country may only be considered “safe” if fundamental human rights guarantees are respected there.
Of particular importance is the principle of non-refoulement. It prohibits returning people to countries where they face persecution, torture, or inhuman treatment.
Formal protection on paper alone is not sufficient. What matters is whether the third country actually has a functioning asylum system and whether protection seekers truly have access to procedures and protection.
The risk of so-called chain deportations must also be considered. This refers to onward removals to countries where the affected persons may face danger.
Access to Protection and Criticism of the Reforms
One of the central issues discussed in the article concerns the level of protection that third countries will be required to provide in the future.
The new EU Asylum Procedures Regulation partially replaces the previous reference to the Geneva Refugee Convention with the new concept of “effective protection.”
As a result, countries that do not fully apply the Refugee Convention could potentially still be considered “safe.”
Critics see this as a lowering of existing protection standards. It is considered particularly problematic that it remains unclear which concrete rights must actually be guaranteed to protection seekers in such third countries.
Individual Assessment and Legal Protection
The article emphasizes that every transfer to a third country must be assessed individually.
Protection seekers must have the opportunity to explain why a third country is not safe in their specific case.
This follows from the European Convention on Human Rights as well as from the right to effective legal protection.
The article particularly criticizes a new reform according to which appeals against such decisions will generally no longer have automatic suspensive effect.
This means that individuals could potentially be deported before a court has issued a final decision on their case.
As a result, effective legal protection may become more difficult in practice – especially for people without sufficient access to legal assistance or translation services.
Connection Criteria and Third-Country Cooperation
Under previous law, there generally had to be a connection between the individual concerned and the third country.
According to the case law of the European Court of Justice, merely passing through a country is normally not sufficient. Nevertheless, the national practices of EU states continue to differ significantly.
The article also refers to political models such as the British Rwanda project or cooperation agreements with countries such as Egypt, Albania, or Turkey.
These developments show that the EU is increasingly attempting to externalize asylum procedures and protection responsibilities to third countries.
Conclusion
The reforms mark a significant transformation of European asylum policy.
The concept of the safe third country is being expanded and made more flexible in order to facilitate cooperation with third countries and to strengthen migration control outside Europe.
At the same time, these developments raise fundamental human rights concerns – particularly regarding actual protection standards, effective legal remedies, and the risk that protection seekers may be transferred to countries that do not provide sufficient protection.