REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level

10.12.2025 - (COM(2025)0186 – C10‑0069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Rapporteur: Alessandro Ciriani

Amendments

• 001-030 (PDF - 146 KB)
• 001-030 (DOC - 41 KB)
• 031-031 (PDF - 188 KB)
• 031-031 (DOC - 67 KB)
• 032-032 (PDF - 89 KB)
• 032-032 (DOC - 19 KB)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level

(COM(2025)0186 – C10‑0069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0186),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 78(2) point (d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10‑0069/2025),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 October 2025[1],

– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the opinion of the Subcommittee on Human Rights,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A10-0259/2025),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

 

 

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council3, specific rules may apply where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin. In particular, the examination of an application has to be accelerated and, if the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States’ territory, a Member State may examine the merits of an application in a border procedure.	(1) Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council3, specific rules may apply where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin. In particular, the examination of an application has to be accelerated and, if the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter Member States’ territory, a Member State may examine the merits of an application in a border procedure.  Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 also provides for the designation of safe countries of origin at Union level, taking into account the conditions laid down in Article 61 of that Regulation.
__________________	__________________
3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj).	3 Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (OJ L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj).

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(1a) The Pact on Migration and Asylum introduces a comprehensive framework for the management of migration in the Union. It also reinforces the Union’s external dimension by strengthening cooperation with international partners and third countries. The designation of a safe country of origin constitutes an essential instrument for ensuring efficient and predictable procedures within the asylum system. The use of accelerated procedures does not alter or diminish the safeguards and guarantees laid down in Union law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Such procedures provide for applications that are likely to be unfounded to be processed rapidly and thus allow for swifter protection to the applicants who are genuinely in need.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) It is necessary to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. It is also necessary to address some of the existing divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries of origin. Therefore a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. While Member States retain the right to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of third countries other than those designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, such common designation at Union level should ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated.	(2) It is necessary to strengthen the application of the safe country of origin concept as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. It is also necessary to address some of the existing divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries of origin. Therefore a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. While Member States retain the right to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of third countries other than those designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, such common designation at Union level aims to ensure that the concept is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated. The proposed Union list should be understood as a common denominator between Member States without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to designate other third countries at national level and to the possible future designation of additional third countries as safe countries of origin at Union level by means of future amendments to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where the applicant cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.	(3) The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin where the applicant cannot provide genuine and fact-based elements or legal evidence justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (‘the Asylum Agency’), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations. The assessment also takes into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.	(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries to be designated as safe countries of origin is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (‘the Asylum Agency’), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations. In order to ensure efficiency, the sources should be accessible, reliable and up to date. The assessment also takes into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.
__________________	__________________
4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 (OJ L 468, 30.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2303/oj).	4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 (OJ L 468, 30.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2303/oj).

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(5a) The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin under this Regulation is based on reliable, official and duly substantiated sources. Moreover, the designation reflects the general situation in that country and is not affected by the individual circumstances, which may only be assessed for the purposes of determining whether the safe country of origin concept should exceptionally not be applied in a specific case. Therefore, national judicial review should examine the detailed evidence regarding an applicant’ s individual situation justifying, in his or her case, the inapplicability of the concept of safe country of origin and not the designation as such.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) The EU candidate countries have been granted this status by the European Council through a unanimous decision, following a recommendation from the European Commission. With regard, in particular, to the political criteria for EU membership, the EU candidate countries were found to have advanced towards reaching the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It can, therefore, be concluded that those third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should be designated as safe countries of origin, except where the following circumstances apply: there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions; or when the EU-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20%.	(6) The EU candidate countries have been granted this status by the European Council through a unanimous decision, following a recommendation from the European Commission. With regard, in particular, to the political criteria for EU membership, the EU candidate countries were found to have advanced towards reaching the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Given that the accession process itself entails continuous and comprehensive monitoring of their compliance with the Copenhagen criteria, it can, therefore, be concluded that those third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should be designated as safe countries of origin, except where any of the following circumstances apply: there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions affecting fundamental rights and freedoms and that are relevant for the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin; the EU-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20%.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6a) In situations where the Union activates temporary protection in respect of a specific candidate country, it should be presumed that the condition of a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country is fulfilled.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6b) To ensure uniform application of this Regulation across all Member States, it is necessary to establish a clear and coordinated mechanism for determining when a candidate country should no longer be considered as a safe country of origin. The Commission should also maintain a consolidated registry of Union restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union adopted in respect of third countries and inform Member States without delay of any modification.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6c) The Commission, assisted by the Asylum Agency, should review the situation in candidate countries designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. Where there is a significant change for the worse in the situation of a candidate country and following a substantiated assessment, the Commission should be able to suspend the designation of a candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level by means of a delegated act. The Commission should also be able to extend the suspension of the designation of a candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew that extension for successive periods of six months as long as the circumstances that justified the suspension persist.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6d) In order to address significant changes for the worse in a candidate country designated as a safe country of origin at Union level, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of suspending the designation of that candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level where the Commission considers, on the basis of a substantiated assessment, that the conditions set by this Regulation are no longer met, and to extend the suspension of the designation of a candidate country as a safe third country or a safe country of origin at Union level. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6e) The Commission should furthermore regularly review the situation in candidate countries designated as safe countries of origin at Union level as regard to whether any of the following circumstances apply: there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions affecting fundamental rights and freedoms and that are relevant for the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin; or when the Union-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20%. Where the Commission considers that any of those circumstances apply to a candidate country, the Commission should suspend the designation of the candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level by means of a delegated act. In addition, the Commission should also be able to suspend the designation of a candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level only for a clearly identified part of the territory of that candidate country, where the threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in that candidate country is limited to a specific geographical area. The Commission should also be able to extend the suspension of the designation of a candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level for a period of six months, with a possibility to renew that extension for successive periods of six months as long as the circumstances listed in the first sentence continue to apply.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6f) In order to address the changes of circumstances in a candidate country designated as a safe country of origin at Union level, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of suspending the designation of that candidate country, in whole or in part, as a safe country of origin at Union level and in respect of extending the suspension of the designation of a candidate country, in whole or in part, as a safe country of origin at Union level. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6 g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6g) When the period of validity of the delegated act and its extensions expires, without a new delegated act being adopted, the designation of a candidate country as a safe country of origin at Union level should no longer be suspended.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(11) With regard to India, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 9 Member States currently designate India as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from India was 2% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. India is a constitutional republic and a parliamentary democracy. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of India to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. While India retains the death penalty in its criminal law and did not sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty, nevertheless, the death penalty has not been applied in practice since 2020. India has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in India and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.	(11) With regard to India, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 9 Member States currently designate India as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from India was 2% in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. India is a constitutional republic and a parliamentary democracy. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of India to countries where there is a risk of death penalty, torture, persecution, or inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. While India retains the death penalty in its criminal law and did not sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty, nevertheless, the death penalty has not been applied in practice since 2020. India has signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in India and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(18) Considering that the migratory situation can rapidly change and there is increased pressure resulting from the arrivals of mixed flows with a high proportion of those with low chances of receiving international protection, Member States should be able to apply the ground for accelerating the examination of applications set out in Article 41(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, from an earlier date than the general date of application of that Regulation. This would allow Member States to react quickly and in a flexible manner to changes in the migratory flows. Considering that applications from such applicants are likely to be unfounded, dealing with them swiftly in an accelerated or a border procedure would allow the asylum and migration authorities to more efficiently assess genuine claims, deliver faster decisions and thereby contribute to a better and more credible functioning of asylum and return policies, in full respect of fundamental rights.	(18) Considering that the migratory situation can rapidly change and there is increased pressure resulting from the arrivals of mixed flows with a high proportion of those with low chances of receiving international protection, Member States should be able to apply the ground for accelerating the examination of applications set out in Article 42(1), point (j), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, from an earlier date than the general date of application of that Regulation. This would allow Member States to react quickly and in a flexible manner to changes in the migratory flows. Considering that applications from such applicants are likely to be unfounded, dealing with them swiftly in an accelerated or a border procedure would allow the asylum and migration authorities to more efficiently assess genuine claims, deliver faster decisions and thereby contribute to a better and more credible functioning of asylum and return policies, in full respect of fundamental rights.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(20a) The Commission is to continuously review the list of safe third countries of origin at Union level, by proposing the addition of further countries in accordance with the conditions laid down in Regulation 2024/1348. Union-wide recognition rate lower than 20% and the inclusion in national lists of safe third countries of origin should be used as relevant indicators for such modifications.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(23) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.	(23) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, while ensuring a balanced implementation that also upholds the Union objectives of maintaining credible asylum procedures, effective migration management and the protection of the external borders.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) Article 62, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:	(1) Article 62 is amended as follows:

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. The countries that have been granted the status of candidate states for accession to the Union are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, unless one of more of the following circumstances apply:	1. The countries that have been granted the status of candidate countries for accession to the Union (“candidate countries”) are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, taking into account the conditions laid down in Article 61, unless one of more of the following circumstances apply to them:

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country;	(a) there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country; activation of temporary protection pursuant to Directive 2001/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1 in respect of a country shall be considered sufficient to establish the existence of such a threat in that country;
	_____________
	1 Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12).

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions;	(b) restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of that country’s actions affecting fundamental rights and freedoms and that are relevant for the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin as set out in Article 61;

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The Commission shall regularly assess whether any of the circumstances referred to in points (a), (b), or (c) apply to a candidate country. Where the Commission considers that circumstances referred to in points (a), (b), or (c) apply to a candidate country, it shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 74 and subject to the conditions set out in Article 63. If the Commission considers that the threat referred to under point (a) is limited to a specific geographical area, the Commission may decide to only suspend a specific part of the territory of that candidate country, clearly stating which part is excluded.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	For the purposes of point (b), the Commission shall compile and maintain a consolidated registry of all restrictive measures adopted in respect of candidate countries and shall make it available to Member States.

Amendment  25

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1a

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1a. The third countries listed in Annex II shall be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level;	1a. The third countries listed in Annex II shall be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level taking into account the conditions laid down in Article 61;

Amendment  26

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) – point a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(1a) Article 63 is amended as follows:
	(a) the following paragraph is inserted:
	‘1a. In the event of the Commission assessing that the circumstances referred to in Article 62 (1) points (a), (b), or (c) apply to a candidate country, it shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 74 to suspend the designation of that third country as a safe country of origin at Union level for a period of six months. A suspension due to the circumstance in Article 62 (1) point (a), may be made for specific parts of the third country’s territory.’

 

Amendment  27

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) – point b (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 2

Present text	Amendment
	(b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
2. The Commission shall continuously review the situation in the third country referred to in paragraph 1 taking into account, inter alia, information provided by the Member States and the Asylum Agency regarding subsequent changes in the situation of that third country.	‘2. The Commission shall continuously review the situation in the third country referred to in paragraph 1 and 1a taking into account, inter alia, information provided by the Member States and the Asylum Agency regarding subsequent changes in the situation of that third country. ’

(32024R1348)

Amendment  28

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) – point c (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(c) the following paragraph is inserted:
	‘2a. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 1 or 1a suspending the designation of a candidate country, in whole or in part, as a safe country of origin at Union level, it shall adopt before the expiry of that delegated act subsequent delegated acts for periods of six months at a time if it considers that the circumstances that justified the suspension persist. If the Commission considers that the circumstances no longer apply, the  candidate country concerned shall be reinstated as a safe country of origin at Union level once the delegated act expires. ’

Amendment  29

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new) – point d (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 63 – paragraph 3

Present text	Amendment
	(d) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
3. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 1 suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level, it shall, within three months of the date of adoption of that delegated act, submit a proposal, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this Regulation to remove that third country’s designation as a safe third country or of safe country of origin at Union level.	‘3. Where the Commission has adopted a delegated act in accordance with paragraph 1 suspending the designation of a third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level listed in Annex II, it shall, within three months of the date of adoption of that delegated act, submit a proposal, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, for amending this Regulation to remove that third country’s designation as a safe third country or of safe country of origin at Union level. ’

(32024R1348)

Amendment  30

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 79 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
However, Article 59(2), Article 61(2) and Article 61(5) point (b) shall apply from the day of entry into force of Regulation (EU) ...¦/...¦[amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348] as regards the application of the concept of ‘safe third country’ in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 Directive 2013/32/EU and that of ‘safe country of origin’ in accordance with Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU.;	However, Article 59(2), Article 61(2) and Article 61(5) point (b) shall apply from the day of entry into force of Regulation (EU) ...¦/...¦[amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348] as regards the application of the concept of ‘safe country of origin’ in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 Directive 2013/32/EU and that of ‘safe third country’ in accordance with Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU.;

 

 

 

 

 

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The proposal provides a much-needed strategic gangplank to strengthening the European Union’s operational efficiency in the field of asylum and migration, in that it seeks to consolidate application of the concept of ‘safe country of origin’, not least by means of a list of safe third countries of origin applicable to the whole EU, and advances the implementation of certain provisions of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, and in particular those under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (‘Asylum Procedure Regulation’), which are now scheduled for June 2026.

 

Besides designating as safe countries of origin at EU level those countries granted candidate status, along with one potential candidate for accession, and establishing a list (contained in Annex II) of other countries deemed to be safe countries of origin at EU level, the proposal for a regulation brings forward the possibility of designating countries as safe with the exception of specific areas within their territory or for clearly identifiable categories of persons, thus offering Member States greater flexibility at national level, and it also advances the possibility of processing in a border procedure or an accelerated procedure applications by nationals of third countries for which the proportion of decisions granting international protection at EU level stands at 20 % or lower;

 

In a rapidly changing geopolitical and migratory context, the Union has embarked resolutely on a paradigm shift in its management of migration flows, and is gradually abandoning the ineffective approaches adopted in its previous models. This change in policy and regulatory direction is rooted in a better-structured and pragmatic vision more attuned to the pressing needs of security, efficiency and solidarity, and which reflects the clear will to gird the Union with joint, opportune and legally robust tools with which to address migratory challenges in a secure and lasting manner, while fully respecting the fundamental principles of the EU’s legal order. The proposal respects fundamental rights and is in line with the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, including the right to asylum and protection against refoulement under Articles 18 and 19.

 

The Commission’s proposal is therefore to be welcomed, and its strategic value acknowledged, as it allows for earlier implementation of the most urgent operational provisions of the Pact, thereby strengthening the capability of the Union and its Member States to take action in the short term.

 

This acceleration of the initial timeframe is justified by the need to ensure that the Union and its Member States are not left devoid of any effective instruments until June 2026, in circumstances where migratory pressure and the challenges arising from returns, border management and the processing of applications for international protection call for swift and effective responses. The proposal for a regulation should be viewed in this context, with its aim being to consolidate practical application of the concept of ‘safe country of origin’ as a key tool for facilitating and expediting the processing of likely-to-be unfounded applications and ensuring a more efficient and credible management of the European asylum system.

Given these circumstances, it is vital to that the proposal be considered and adopted as swiftly as possible, hence avoiding delays that would undermine its effectiveness.

As was expected, the proposal designates the candidate countries and one potential candidate for EU membership, along with six other countries, as safe countries of origin at EU level. Under the Asylum Procedure Regulation, where an applicant for international protection comes from a safe country of origin, the examination of an application is accelerated and completed within a maximum of three months. Moreover, if the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter the territory of the Member States, a Member State may examine the application in a border procedure.

 

We therefore agree with the Commission’s choice of including among the countries designated as safe countries of origin those which have candidate status or potential candidate status for accession to the European Union. We believe this to be the right choice and one in keeping with the current legal framework, as it was based not only on an automatic presumption, but also on a multilevel technical analysis carried out by the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). The analysis served to thoroughly assess the judicial, institutional and fundamental rights situation in each of the countries, irrespective of the stage they had reached in the accession process.

 

The criteria applied were those laid down in the Qualification Regulation (EU 2024/1347) and the Asylum Procedure Regulation itself, and include verification of the absence of systemic persecution, serious harm or structural human rights violations. The designations are therefore based on objective, verifiable and harmonised EU-level parameters that comply fully with international law and the fundamental principles of the EU’s legal order.

 

At the same time, the proposal factors in the possibility that issues may arise in the future, and hence provides for a mechanism for the dynamic review of the list that allows for suspension or reinstatement of designation as a safe country of origin based on future developments.

It was nevertheless considered appropriate, in the interests of uniform application of the regulation across all Member States and greater legal certainty, to make certain amendments to the text, in order not only to clarify the circumstances determining suspension but also to establish a clear and coordinated mechanism for deciding when a candidate country for accession to the Union can no longer be deemed a safe country of origin, or may be reinstated as such after suspension. It is therefore felt that the Commission should conduct regular objective assessments of the relevant circumstances and formally notify the Member States of the outcome of those assessments. Such notification should be made public and should take effect uniformly across the Union from a specified date.

 

We also agree with the designation of the countries listed in the Annex, as this constitutes a concrete and necessary step towards building a truly common, cohesive and functional European asylum system. We would stress once again that each designation was based on a thorough technical analysis conducted by the EUAA, relying on qualified sources and objective criteria set out in EU regulations, and which was transparent and accessible, being made available to Members under the rules in force with the possibility of their accessing the sources.

The countries on the list were assessed on the basis of their capacity to ensure, structurally, the absence of persecution and serious harm, as well as on the existence of judicial and institutional protection mechanisms. However, the presumption of safety can still be superseded in individual cases, in line with the principle of individual assessment and the right to effective remedy.

 

It should be stressed that designation as a ‘safe country of origin’ leaves full scope for assessing individual applications and for every applicant’s right to demonstrate his or her own vulnerability or personal risk, in line with the guarantees laid down in EU legislation. In other words, the proposal does not do away with the principle of individual assessment, but integrates it into a more efficient system which reduces the risk of abuse and enables resources to be concentrated on the most complex cases and the most vulnerable individuals who, paradoxically, are currently those being penalised. The application of accelerated procedures is not tantamount, therefore, to denying the right to asylum, but is a streamlining of the system, which is currently overloaded and structurally sluggish.

 

It should also be emphasised that the Commission asked the EUAA to focus its analysis on a limited number of countries, selected on the basis of objective criteria, including that of a recognition rate of under 5 %. This approach made it possible to establish an operational short list, which helped to kick-start the process. That said, the list is not exhaustive and does not preclude the ‘safe country of origin’ principle from being applied to other countries.

It serves as a starting point, and may be amended and extended, not least in the light of other items of information, including the designations already appearing on the national lists drawn up by many Member States.

 

In conclusion, the proposal fits fully into the strategic vision of the reform of the European asylum system, which seeks to remedy the inefficiencies of the past and design a model based on clear rules, cooperation between Member States, security and the protection of fundamental rights. The early adoption of the list of safe countries of origin, together with the other areas covered by the proposal, not only constitutes a firm step towards a more credible and efficient system, but also sends a strong political signal: the Union stands ready to act and to address migratory challenges with rigour, humaneness, efficiency and foresight.

Supporting this proposal means opting for a Europe that is more in tune with values, safer and fairer.

It means equipping the EU with operational solutions that reinforce citizens’ trust and strengthen cooperation between Member States.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the draft report / report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register[2], or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

 

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies

Ambassador of Colombia to Belgium and the EU

Ambassador of Morocco to the EU

Ambassador of Bangladesh to Belgium, Luxembourg and EU

Ambassador of Egypt to Belgium, Luxembourg and the EU

Ambassador of Tunisia to the EU

Ambassador of India to Belgium and Luxembourg and the EU

 

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur(s).

 

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament’s Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

 

MINORITY POSITION

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Cecilia Strada, Birgit Sippel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Marina Kaljurand, Krzysztof Šmiszek, Murielle Laurent, Alessandro Zan, Matjaž Nemec, Saskia Bricmont, Leoluca Orlando, Jaume Assens Llodrà, Catarina Vieira, Ilaria Salis, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Pernando Barrena, Giuseppe Antoci

 

 

The Asylum Procedure Regulation lays down clear criteria for designating a third country as a safe country of origin. This report replaces those criteria in respect of EU-accession candidate countries, which will be deemed safe automatically. This Parliament has recently expressed strong reservations about security and democracy in Georgia, Serbia and Turkey. Nevertheless, the report proposes to designate those countries safe for their own citizens.

 

The assessment required prior to designating a safe country of origin should establish “the application of law within a democratic system” and take account of protection provided by the observation of rights and freedoms laid down in the ECHR, ICCPR and in UNCAT. Based on EUAA factsheets provided, it is not credible to designate certain countries on the proposed list as safe, most notably Tunisia, Egypt and Bangladesh.

 

The Commission’s decision not to carry out an impact assessment was not borne out of urgency (according to Eurostat, asylum applications in August 2025 decreased by 27% compared with August 2024, according to Frontex, irregular arrivals decreased by 22% in the first nine months of 2025) but out of political expediency. An impact assessment, including on fundamental rights implications, would have presented awkward questions for the Commission. That the Parliament also wants to sidestep these questions reflects a failure to take seriously its role as co-legislator.

MINORITY POSITION

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Fabienne Keller, Raquel García-Hermida van der Walle, Abir Al-Sahlani, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Nikola Minchev, Irena Joveva.

 

 

Despite that the proposal to establish a list of safe countries of origin at Union level is welcomed, it nevertheless raises, in its current form, serious concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights and legal clarity.

The designation of the listed third countries as “safe” creates a presumption of safety that shifts the burden of proof entirely onto the applicant. This presumption may lead to unjustified accelerated procedures and may increase the risk of refoulement.

 

Frontloading provisions from the Asylum Procedure Regulation before the Pact on Migration and Asylum enters into force in June 2026 risks fragmenting its comprehensive framework and undermining its legal coherence. Priority should instead be given to its full and timely implementation to ensure a coherent Common European Asylum System.

 

Furthermore, the European Commission’s methodology for assessing third countries, which lacks transparency, together with limited access to EUAA data supporting these designations, further weakens the proposal’s credibility.

 

The right to seek asylum within the European Union must remain fully effective. Efforts should focus on implementing the Pact, strengthening fair and efficient asylum procedures, ensuring effective border controls, and guaranteeing that all asylum decisions are based on individual examination in full respect of international and European law.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (21.11.2025)

for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level

(COM(2025)0186 – C10‑0069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD))

Rapporteur for opinion: Marco Tarquinio

 

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Introduction

Even if the work towards a harmonisation of the safe country of origin lists can be considered a positive step towards a common EU asylum system, most of the countries included in the Commission's proposed list cannot be considered “safe”. Well-documented ongoing human rights violations, including threats to freedom of expression, political repression, and gender-based violence and persecution of vulnerable groups, contradict such an assessment.

The amended Commission proposal risks undermining the right of effective remedy for asylum applicants, guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and constitutes a form of externalisation of the EU’s international protection obligations. In fact, the proposal shifts responsibility onto third countries while weakening access to fair and effective asylum procedures within the EU.

Lack of substantial procedural safeguards

The "safe country of origin" concept rests on a rebuttable presumption of safety, therefore shifting the burden of proof to the applicant and serving as a ground for accelerated and border procedures. Such an approach undermines legal certainty because it:

a) erodes the principle of individualised asylum assessment - the cornerstone of refugee law - whereby every applicant is entitled to a merit-based evaluation;

b) allows to shorten deadlines, restrict access to information and legal assistance, and assume claims are probably groundless, thereby curtailing asylum seekers’ ability to present their case;

c) in combination with the elimination of the automatic suspensive effect of appeals against negative decisions foreseen in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR)[3], create the risk of deportation after an accelerated procedure before the full completion of a judicial procedure.

The Commission has even failed to publish all criteria and sources used for the designation of the safe third countries. This lack of transparency seriously undermines the right of an effective remedy and fails to provide the necessary procedural safeguards, as it reduces both applicants’ ability to contest decisions and judicial authorities’ capacity to review them. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its recent judgment of 1 August 2025 (Case C-758/24) recalled that designations must be based on reliable, up-to-date, transparent and accessible sources. Yet, the Commission did not publish its sources. MEPs received access to relevant EUAA documents on the identified safe countries of origins that were provided to the Commission in view of this proposal, on the basis of a "need to know" consultation. No other sources were clearly identified or disclosed by the Commission to the European Parliament, neither were made accessible to the public.

The 20% EU-wide recognition rate criteria

The reliance on a recognition rate at EU level of 20% as a threshold for designating a country as safe is unsubstantiated because:

a) a one-in-five recognition rate is far from negligible and demonstrates that significant groups of applicants are indeed in need of protection;

b) recognition rates at Member States level could differ drastically;

c) even if the overall recognition rate is low, vulnerable categories - such as women, LGBTIQ people, and ethnic and religious minorities - may face heightened risks of persecution and serious harm;

d) certain regions within a country may be unsafe despite an overall presumption of safety.

For these reasons, the correlation between the 20% recognition rate and the concept of “safety” cannot serve as a sound basis for inclusion in the list.

Candidate countries

The candidate status is not sufficient to determine if a country is safe. The Copenhagen criteria are benchmarks for EU accession, not a thorough assessment about the human rights at the time the candidate status is granted.

Furthermore, the Commission should include among the conditionalities risks such as systemic discrimination against minorities, democratic backsliding or outbreaks of armed conflict that may occur during the accession process. 

Potential candidate for EU memberships

The methodology used for the candidate countries should be applied also to potential candidates.

Other countries of origin

Based on information from the EUAA and other relevant organisations, there are no sufficient grounds to designate Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia as safe countries of origins.

 

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Affairs submits the following to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible:

 

 

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(2a) The designation of a third country as safe country of origin has to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

 

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where the applicant cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.	(3) The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where the applicant cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment with the guarantees laid down in Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities, political activists, stateless persons and journalists, may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.

 

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (‘the Asylum Agency’), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations. The assessment also takes into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.	(5) The assessment of the situation in other third countries is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including but not limited to information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (‘the Asylum Agency’), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations, including independent non-governmental human rights organisations. The assessment also takes into account where available the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Sources should be accessible, transparent, reliable and up to date, also to ensure the right to an effective remedy and the appropriate procedural safeguards.
__________________	__________________
4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 (OJ L 468, 30.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2303/oj).	4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2021 on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 (OJ L 468, 30.12.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/2303/oj).

 

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) The EU candidate countries have been granted this status by the European Council through a unanimous decision, following a recommendation from the European Commission. With regard, in particular, to the political criteria for EU membership, the EU candidate countries were found to have advanced towards reaching the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It can, therefore, be concluded that those third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should be designated as safe countries of origin, except where the following circumstances apply: there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions; or when the EU-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20%.	(6) The EU candidate countries have been granted this status by the European Council through a unanimous decision, following a recommendation from the European Commission. With regard, in particular, to the political criteria for EU membership, the EU candidate countries were found, when their status was granted, to have advanced towards reaching the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It can be concluded that third countries that have been granted EU candidate status may be considered as safe countries of origin within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and may be designated accordingly as safe countries of origin at Union level. However, EU accession is not a linear process. Democratic, rule of law and human rights backsliding of candidate countries may occur, as well as significant delays or de-facto freezing of the EU accession negotiations. Therefore, third countries that have been granted EU candidate status should not be designated as safe countries of origin if from the continuous country-specific review it emerges that the conditions laid down in Article 61 are not met anymore or that any of the following circumstances apply: there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country or a serious backsliding of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms, including when accession negotiations have been suspended or frozen; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have been adopted in view of the country’s actions;

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(17) The designation of those countries as safe countries of origin at Union level is without prejudice to the rule set out in Regulation 2024/1348, according to which Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where applicants cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to them, in the framework of an individual assessment. In that context, special attention should be paid to applicants who are in a specific situation in those countries, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious minorities and journalists.	(17) The designation of those countries as safe countries of origin at Union level is without prejudice to the rule set out in Regulation 2024/1348, according to which Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where applicants cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to them, in the framework of an individual assessment. In that context, special attention should be paid to applicants who are in a specific situation in those countries, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities, political activists, stateless persons and journalists.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(17a) The importance of the Pact on Migration and Asylum should be highlighted as the comprehensive approach to the management of migration and asylum while upholding the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between Member States for upholding human rights and providing humane protection to those who genuinely need it. Therefore, the swift application of parts of the Pact on Migration and Asylum that can already be applied is of the utmost importance.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 17 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(17b) It is to be highlighted that the purpose of the border procedure is to relieve the system of the burden of processing, through asylum procedures. The goal is to offer better and faster protection to those who are entitled to international protection, by identifying them early within the system.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(23) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.	(23) This Regulation must be applied in full respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular Articles 18, 19 and 47 thereof.

 

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) Article 62, paragraph 1 is amended as follows:	(1) Article 62 is amended as follows:

 

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – introductory part

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:	(a) the following paragraph 1a is inserted:

 

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. The countries that have been granted the status of candidate states for accession to the Union are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, unless one of more of the following circumstances apply:	1a. In accordance with paragraph 1 and without prejudice to paragraph 4, the countries that have been granted the status of candidate states for accession to the Union are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, unless, according to the country specific review, one or more of the following circumstances apply:

 

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country;	(a) there is a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the country or a serious backsliding of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms, including when accession negotiations have been frozen or formally suspended;

 

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) the proportion of decisions by the determining authority granting international protection to the applicants from the country - either its nationals or former habitual residents in case of stateless persons – is higher than 20% according to the latest available yearly Union-wide average Eurostat data.;	deleted

 

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – introductory part

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1a

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) the following paragraph 1a is inserted:	(b) the following paragraph 1b is inserted:

 

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1a

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1a. The third countries listed in Annex II shall be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level;	1b. In accordance with paragraph 1 and without prejudice to paragraph 4, the third countries listed in Annex II are designated as safe countries of origin at Union level;

 

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b a (new)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348

Article 62 – paragraph 1

Present text	Amendment
	(ba) Article 62, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:
2. The Commission shall review the situation in third countries that are designated as safe countries of origin, with the assistance of the Asylum Agency and on the basis of the other sources of information referred to in Article 61(3).	2. The Commission, with the assistance of the Asylum Agency and on the basis of the other sources of information referred to in Article 61(3), shall continuously review whether the conditions laid down in Article 61 and any of the circumstances referred to in points (a) or (b) apply to a third country that is already considered as a safe country of origin.

 

 

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he included in his opinion input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register[4], or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)

2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for opinion.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

 

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Title	Amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level
References	COM(2025)0186 – C10-0069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)
Committee(s) responsible  Date announced in plenary	LIBE 16.6.2025
Opinion by  Date announced in plenary	AFET 16.6.2025
Rapporteur for the opinion  Date appointed	Marco Tarquinio 1.9.2025
Discussed in committee	24.9.2025
Date adopted	20.11.2025
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	35 8 5
Members present for the final vote	Petras Auštrevičius, Wouter Beke, Adam Bielan, Ľuboš Blaha, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Grzegorz Braun, Sebastião Bugalho, Tobias Cremer, Loucas Fourlas, Michael Gahler, Christophe Gomart, Bernard Guetta, Hana Jalloul Muro, Sandra Kalniete, Łukasz Kohut, Ondřej Kolář, Rihards Kols, David McAllister, Sven Mikser, Francisco José Millán Mon, Kostas Papadakis, Tonino Picula, Thijs Reuten, Nela Riehl, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Mounir Satouri, Villy Søvndal, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Marta Temido, Cristian Terheş, Riho Terras, Hermann Tertsch, Hilde Vautmans
Substitutes present for the final vote	Jaume Asens Llodrà, Krzysztof Brejza, Seán Kelly, Alessandra Moretti, Hans Neuhoff, Marjan Šarec, Sven Simon, Marco Tarquinio, Matthieu Valet
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote	Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Paulius Saudargas, Günther Sidl, Dimitris Tsiodras, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL
BY THE COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

35	+
PPE	Wouter Beke, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Krzysztof Brejza, Sebastião Bugalho, Loucas Fourlas, Michael Gahler, Christophe Gomart, Sandra Kalniete, Seán Kelly, Łukasz Kohut, Ondřej Kolář, David McAllister, Francisco José Millán Mon, Paulius Saudargas, Sven Simon, Riho Terras, Dimitris Tsiodras, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Renew	Petras Auštrevičius, Bernard Guetta, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Marjan Šarec, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, Hilde Vautmans
S&D	Tobias Cremer, Hana Jalloul Muro, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Sven Mikser, Alessandra Moretti, Tonino Picula, Thijs Reuten, Nacho Sánchez Amor, Günther Sidl, Marco Tarquinio, Marta Temido

 

8	-
ECR	Adam Bielan, Rihards Kols, Cristian Terheş
ESN	Hans Neuhoff
NI	Grzegorz Braun, Kostas Papadakis
PfE	Hermann Tertsch, Matthieu Valet

 

5	0
NI	Ľuboš Blaha
Verts/ALE	Jaume Asens Llodrà, Nela Riehl, Mounir Satouri, Villy Søvndal

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

 

 

 

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Title	Amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level
References	COM(2025)0186 – C10-0069/2025 – 2025/0101(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	16.4.2025
Committee(s) responsible  Date announced in plenary	LIBE 16.6.2025
Committees asked for opinions  Date announced in plenary	AFET 16.6.2025
Rapporteurs  Date appointed	Alessandro Ciriani 22.9.2025
Discussed in committee	12.5.2025	13.10.2025
Date adopted	3.12.2025
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	39 25 8
Members present for the final vote	Magdalena Adamowicz, Abir Al-Sahlani, Giuseppe Antoci, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Pernando Barrena Arza, Nikola Bartůšek, François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Saskia Bricmont, Jaroslav Bžoch, Damien Carême, Susanna Ceccardi, Caterina Chinnici, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Alessandro Ciriani, Lena Düpont, Marieke Ehlers, Estrella Galán, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Paolo Inselvini, Irena Joveva, Erik Kaliňák, Marina Kaljurand, Fabienne Keller, Mary Khan, Alice Kuhnke, Murielle Laurent, Fabrice Leggeri, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Michael McNamara, Ana Catarina Mendes, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Matjaž Nemec, Ana Miguel Pedro, Ilaria Salis, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Petra Steger, Cecilia Strada, Georgiana Teodorescu, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Milan Uhrík, Tom Vandendriessche, Kristian Vigenin, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, Alessandro Zan, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
Substitutes present for the final vote	Katarina Barley, Anna Maria Cisint, Markéta Gregorová, Monika Hohlmeier, Nikola Minchev, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Leoluca Orlando, Oliver Schenk, Sebastian Tynkkynen, Alexandre Varaut, Maciej Wąsik
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote	Stefano Cavedagna, José Cepeda, Pietro Fiocchi, Andrey Kovatchev, Marcos Ros Sempere, Michał Szczerba, Catarina Vieira
Date tabled	10.12.2025

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

 

39	+
ECR	Stefano Cavedagna, Alessandro Ciriani, Pietro Fiocchi, Paolo Inselvini, Georgiana Teodorescu, Sebastian Tynkkynen
ESN	Mary Khan, Milan Uhrík, Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik
NI	Erik Kaliňák
PPE	Magdalena Adamowicz, François-Xavier Bellamy, Ioan-Rareş Bogdan, Caterina Chinnici, Lena Düpont, Monika Hohlmeier, Andrey Kovatchev, Jeroen Lenaers, Lukas Mandl, Verena Mertens, Nadine Morano, Ana Miguel Pedro, Oliver Schenk, Michał Szczerba, Alice Teodorescu Måwe, Tomas Tobé, Elissavet Vozemberg-Vrionidi, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Javier Zarzalejos, Tomáš Zdechovský
PfE	Nikola Bartůšek, Jaroslav Bžoch, Susanna Ceccardi, Anna Maria Cisint, Marieke Ehlers, Fabrice Leggeri, Petra Steger, Tom Vandendriessche, Alexandre Varaut

 

25	-
ECR	Maciej Wąsik
S&D	Katarina Barley, José Cepeda, Marina Kaljurand, Murielle Laurent, Ana Catarina Mendes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Matjaž Nemec, Marcos Ros Sempere, Birgit Sippel, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Cecilia Strada, Kristian Vigenin, Alessandro Zan
The Left	Giuseppe Antoci, Pernando Barrena Arza, Damien Carême, Estrella Galán, Ilaria Salis
Verts/ALE	Jaume Asens Llodrà, Saskia Bricmont, Markéta Gregorová, Alice Kuhnke, Leoluca Orlando, Catarina Vieira

 

8	0
Renew	Abir Al-Sahlani, Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová, Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle, Irena Joveva, Fabienne Keller, Michael McNamara, Nikola Minchev, Jan-Christoph Oetjen

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

• [1] Not yet published in the Official Journal.
   
• [2] Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (OJ L 207, 11.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2021/611/oj).
• [3] Regulation 2024/1348 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU
• [4] Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (OJ L 207, 11.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2021/611/oj).