“According to Eric Mamer, the commission’s spokesperson, the proposal is not a legislative one in the strictest sense,” he informed reporters earlier this week.
This distinction is made despite previous statements by the commission suggesting that such ideas could undermine the fundamental right of asylum in the EU.
Ylva Johansson, the EU migration commissioner from Sweden, once expressed concerns that it would “send a strong and wrong signal to the outer world.”
Furthermore, an EU commission spokesperson has also previously made similar remarks.
“It is not feasible under current EU regulations or under the new pact on migration and asylum proposals,” reporters were told in 2021, in reference to Denmark and the UK’s plans to process asylum claims in Rwanda by Rwandan authorities.
Concerns have now shifted ahead of the June elections amid fears of the far-right gaining seats.
“When you resort to far-right measures to combat the far-right, then you have lost and they have won,” commented Irish liberal Renew Europe MEP, Barry Andrews, on the EPP asylum proposals.
Safe third-country
The commission is now discussing the concept of a safe third-country. Ursula von der Leyen also mentioned this when questioned about the EPP plans.
“Whatever actions we take will fully respect our obligations under EU and international law. The concept of safe third-countries is not new and is already established in EU law,” she stated earlier this week.
This concept allows EU states to deem an asylum claim inadmissible if the conditions for receiving international protection elsewhere are met. Currently, these conditions are quite strict and outlined in the EU asylum procedures regulation (APR).
The APR is part of the broader overhaul of EU asylum rules agreed upon by the co-legislators in December. It specifies that EU states cannot send individuals to Rwanda, for example, unless they have a connection.
Sign up for EUobserver’s daily newsletter
Receive all our published stories at 7.30 AM.
By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
However, the same regulation includes a provision allowing a future European Commission to eliminate those connections and safe third-country criteria altogether.
An article in the APR makes this possibility clear, stating that the commission will review the concept of safe third-country and has the authority to make any necessary changes.
These changes can be implemented within one year of the regulation coming into effect, falling under the next European Commission, which von der Leyen hopes to lead.
Perverse incentive
Civil society advocates argue that countries in Africa and other regions have no interest in being labeled as a safe location for Europe’s asylum offshoring.
“They maintain low standards to prevent Europe from shifting its responsibilities to them,” explained Catherine Woollard, the head of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), earlier this year.
This approach delays the establishment of protection systems in these countries due to the fear of being designated as safe. ECRE believes that these concepts undermine the Refugee Convention, a cornerstone of International Refugee Law.
They also contend that it contradicts the EU treaty requirement of article 78, which mandates the EU’s asylum policy to be “in accordance with” the Refugee Convention.
