EU approves “safe countries”: a measure that simplifies procedures but weakens migrants’ rights

Edited by Francesca Moriero

The Council of the European Union has given the green light to the new regulation on repatriations and the formal update of the list of so-called “safe third countries.” This is a step Italy has long awaited in order to proceed with the ratification of the legislation and, above all, to attempt to unblock the operation of the planned hub in Albania. Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, attending the Home Affairs Council in Brussels, welcomed the agreement, considering it “an important element of the national strategy for managing migration flows.” However, it remains a controversial outcome, as many of the instruments introduced raise significant doubts regarding both the protection of rights and the actual effectiveness of the measures.

The New List of Safe Countries

According to the EU ministers’ decision, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia must be considered safe countries of origin. Citizens from these areas will therefore be subject to accelerated asylum application procedures, which may result in a very short timeframe. Furthermore, their applications may also be evaluated in the third countries they pass through during their journey, extending the possibility of relocating procedures outside of Europe.

Italy, which records a significant number of arrivals from Bangladesh, Egypt, and Tunisia, was the first to push for this result. However, the EU’s rationale—considering countries with a share of asylum applications of less than 20%—as “safe” appears more like a statistical shortcut than a true assessment of conditions in the countries of origin. It is no coincidence that the list includes countries where human rights and fundamental freedoms are not guaranteed for large segments of the population.

Hubs in Third Countries

One of the most significant effects of the regulation is the ability of Member States to establish processing and repatriation centers in third countries, so-called return hubs. European Commissioner Magnus Brunner emphasized that the choice of partners is up to the Member States: the Netherlands is negotiating with Uganda, Germany has expressed interest, and Italy continues to focus on the agreement with Albania. The European legal framework now allows for these experiments, but profound doubts remain. The delocalization of procedures could result in a weakening of legal guarantees, less public oversight, and a real risk of prolonged detention without adequate legal support. Added to this is the ethical question: outsourcing reception means transferring fundamental responsibilities to third countries that very often do not have standards comparable to those of the EU. Human rights organizations fear, in short, that these centers will become opaque places, far removed from democratic control and much more exposed to human rights violations.

The issue of solidarity quotas: a Europe still divided

The issue of solidarity quotas also remains unresolved. The Commission proposes a system of mandatory contributions to support first-arrival countries, but resistance remains strong. Finland, for example, would only agree to contribute financially, without assuming the burden of reception. The final agreement will therefore depend on the ability of the Twenty-seven to overcome vetoes and mistrust, but the outcome is not a foregone conclusion.

A far from triumphant outcome

The package approved in Brussels certainly represents an important political step, but it cannot be interpreted as a victory. The framework constructed by the EU aims primarily to speed up procedures, outsource management, and restrict access to asylum for a growing number of people. The risk, however, is that, in the name of this “efficiency,” protections and guarantees will be reduced, leaving already vulnerable people even more exposed.

The result, in short, is migration treated as a logistical problem, rather than a complex human phenomenon. And those who will pay the price, once again, will be migrants themselves, those fleeing countries that are “safe” on paper, but in practice, continue to be anything but.