ELi turvalise kolmanda riigi kontseptsiooni kohaldamise määrus

EN EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 20.5.2025

COM(2025) 259 final

2025/0132 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third

country’ concept

{SWD(2025) 600 final}

EN 1 EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

• Context and reasons for the proposal

Article 77 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation (2024/1348) (‘APR’) requires the

Commission to review the safe third country concept (‘STC’) and, where appropriate, propose

any targeted amendments by 12 June 2025. On this basis, the Commission carried out a

holistic review of the STC concept.

In this context, the Commission examined whether international law (the 1951 Geneva

Convention and the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights) and EU primary law,

including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, allow for further revisions to the

conditions for applying the STC concept and its legal safeguards, with the aim of further

facilitating its application by Member States. The Commission also considered Member

States’ experiences and challenges in applying the STC concept, as expressed in various fora,

and assessed whether the changes introduced under the APR had already addressed these

issues or if gaps remained. Finally, the Commission analysed relevant jurisprudence of the

Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) and of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’).

The safe third country concept (‘STC’), currently governed by Article 33(2)(c) of the Asylum

Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU (‘APD’)1, was revised as part of the Pact on Migration and

Asylum adopted in May 2024.

When applying the ‘safe third country’ concept (‘STC’), Member States may reject asylum

applications as inadmissible without examining whether the persons meet the conditions for

being granted protection in the EU. The STC concept may be applied as part of the border

procedure.

The Asylum Procedure Regulation 2024/1348 (‘APR’)2 introduced several changes to the

STC rules, aimed at allowing for a broader and more flexible applicability of the STC

concept. These changes include:

– The widening of the criteria allowing designation of a third country as ‘safe’, in

particular allowing countries that are not parties to the Geneva Convention to also be

designated as STCs, provided that they can offer ‘effective protection’3.

– An explicit reference to family links and stay in the third country as possible

indications of a connection (recital 48 APR).

– The option to designate a third country as ‘safe’ with exceptions for specific parts of

its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons (recital 46 and Article 59(2)

APR).

1 Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common

procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60. 2 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. 3 Article 57(2) APR defines “effective protection” to include: the right to remain pending the examination

of the application for protection; adequate standard of living corresponding to the overall situation in

the country; access to healthcare and education under the same terms as for nationals; and effective

protection until the finding of a durable solution.

EN 2 EN

– The introduction of a presumption of safety for third countries with which the EU

has concluded a STC agreement pursuant to Article 218 TFEU (Article 59(7) APR).

– The introduction of the possibility to adopt common lists of STCs designated at EU

level, without precluding the possibility for Member States to designate additional

STCs at national level (recital 81 and Articles 60, 63 and 64 APR).

The new provisions will apply as of June 2026. In relation to Article 59(2) of the APR,

concerning the possibility to designate a third country as ‘safe’ with territorial and/or category

exceptions, the Commission recently proposed to advance its application4.

The European Parliament and the Council considered that further legislative changes may be

required even before the APR applies. Consequently, Article 77 of the APR tasks the

Commission with reviewing the STC concept by 12 June 2025 and proposing, where

appropriate, any targeted amendments.

• The review of the safe third country concept

The Commission adopted a holistic approach to the review in accordance with the obligation

under Article 77 of the APR5.

As part of this review, the Commission examined the elements related to the STC concept and

its application under the APR. These include:

(1) the conditions a third country must meet in order to be considered ‘safe’, as set out in

Article 59 of the APR. In essence, there should be no risk of persecution or of serious

harm in that third country; there must be the possibility to request and, if conditions

are fulfilled, receive effective protection as defined in Article 57 of the APR; and

the principle of non-refoulement must be respected.

(2) the existence of a connection between the applicant and the third country, meaning

that there must be a link between the asylum seeker and the STC that makes it

reasonable to transfer the applicant to that STC.

(3) due process guarantees established by the APR which must be respected by

Member States applying the concept, notably an individual, case-by-case assessment

of whether the country is safe for each applicant concerned, as well as the possibility

for the applicant to challenge in court both the existence of a connection to the third

country in question, as well as the automatic suspensive effect of the appeal, and the

fact that the country would be safe given his/her specific circumstances (possibility

to rebut the presumption of safety).

As a result of this review, and after careful analysis, the Commission, concluded that there is

scope to revise the connection criterion, as it is not a requirement under international law, and

the automatic suspensive effect of the appeal. However, it found that there is no scope for

revision regarding the criteria for ‘safety’ of the third country, as they are already aligned with

the minimum standards required under international law6. Other aspects linked to due process,

4 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)

186 final of 16.4.2025. 5 SWD (2025) 600 DG HOME SWD linked to safe third countries (STC) proposal 6 Under recital 46 of the APR, effective protection implies “access to means of subsistence sufficient to

maintain an adequate standard of living with regard to the overall situation of that hosting third country,

access to healthcare and essential treatment of illnesses and to education under the conditions generally

provided for in that third country”. Furthermore, according to recital 51, “access to means of

subsistence sufficient to maintain an adequate standard of living” should be understood as “including

EN 3 EN

including the individual assessment, are requirements under EU and international law and

jurisprudence as essential in protecting individuals from refoulement and preserving their

fundamental rights. Given their binding nature under EU and international law, these

safeguards must remain in place7.

Therefore, the following two elements have been identified for a targeted amendment of the

APR:

(a) the requirement of a connection between the applicant and the third country

(the connection criterion); and

(b) the suspensive effect of the appeal against decisions rejecting an application

as inadmissible on the STC ground.

Stakeholders flagged various benefits and risks for each alternative, as summarised in the

section ‘stakeholder consultation’ below.

A. Connection criterion

The Commission’s review found that the non-binding nature of the connection criterion in

international law allowed room for its revision. It was also the element in the STC concept

under the APR that a significant majority of Member States identified as having the biggest

impact in facilitating the application of the concept. On this basis, the Commission identified

and assessed three alternatives for revising the connection criterion in the context of the

APR8.

(1) Removal of the connection criterion as a mandatory requirement under EU law

Since the connection criterion is not required under international law, one alternative

considered was to remove its mandatory nature from EU law, thus allowing Member States,

when applying the STC concept, the possibility to choose whether to apply the connection

criterion or not, and how to define it in national law.

This alternative would facilitate the application of the STC by Member States by potentially

expanding the number of applicants to whom the STC concept could be applied, broadening

the pool of third countries with which to collaborate in its application, and eliminating the

need to prove the existence of a connection to a given STC. This would reduce administrative

burden and increase the effectiveness of the processing of asylum applications. It could also

contribute to increased responsibility sharing and possibly expand the global protection space.

This alternative needs to be applied in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,

including children’s rights.

This alternative also covered the possibility of excluding specific groups of vulnerable

applicants, or introducing specific measures to prevent absconding (e.g., presumption of risk

of absconding when applying the STC concept or introducing a new ground for detention in

the Reception Conditions Directive). This alternative also included the possibility to conclude

access to food, clothing, housing or shelter and the right to engage in gainful employment, for example

through access to the labour market, under conditions not less favourable than those of non-nationals of

the third country generally in the same circumstances”. These requirements are by and large equivalent

to what the 1951 Geneva Convention requires for refugees legally staying on the territory: the right to

engage in wage-earning employment (Article 17 of the Geneva Convention), to housing (Article 21)

and to self-employment (Article 18) should be granted on terms as favourable as for third-country

nationals legally residing in the country; the right of access to education (Article 22) and to social

security and benefits (Article 24) should be given on the same terms as for nationals. 7 See section 3 of SWD (2025) 600 DG HOME SWD linked to safe third countries (STC) proposal 8 See section 4 of SWD (2025) 600 DG HOME SWD linked to safe third countries (STC) proposal.

EN 4 EN

agreements or arrangements with third countries requiring the examination of the merits of

requests for effective protection made by applicants whose application was rejected as

inadmissible under the STC concept.

These elements are part of this legislative proposal.

(2) Considering transit as a sufficient criterion

A second alternative was to consider that mere transit of the applicant through a safe third

country is a sufficient criterion to apply the STC concept to the individuals concerned.

The inclusion of transit as a criterion would provide an additional objective link between the

applicant and the safe third country, as it is reasonable to expect that a person seeking

international protection could have applied for protection in the safe third country through

which that person has transited. This interpretation aligns with the approach taken by the

Commission in its 2016 proposal for an Asylum Procedure Regulation9, where it

acknowledged that transit through a safe third country could be sufficient to apply the STC

concept. Recognising transit as a valid objective link facilitates the application of the concept

and possibly expands the range of third countries with which Member States can cooperate on

asylum matters. It will be the responsibility of the competent asylum authorities of the

Member States to prove such transit.

The possibility of introducing a specific rebuttable presumption of transit was considered,

according to which it could be assumed that an individual arriving irregularly in the EU

territory, and who is unable to demonstrate a direct route of arrival, must have transited

through at least one third country. However, it was concluded that the introduction of a

rebuttable presumption would add to the grounds for litigation, which factored against the

desired simplification of the application of the STC concept. For this reason, the possibility of

introducing a rebuttable presumption was discarded.

(3) Defining the connection criterion in the APR but making it more flexible (which would

also include transit)

A third alternative was to define ‘connection’ under EU law to consider cultural ties or

knowledge of the language, in addition to transit, as sufficient links, possibly accompanied by

a guidance document.

This alternative could broaden the pool of potential STCs, as it goes beyond third countries on

the route to the EU, while facilitating cooperation with the third country concerned and

contributing to increased responsibility sharing. Furthermore, it could facilitate the integration

of the applicant once transferred, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the transfer.

However, the burden of proving a connection would always rest on the asylum authorities of

the Member States. This alternative was therefore not considered to bring about the desired

effect of simplifying the application of the STC concept.

B. Suspensive effect of the appeal

The Commission has further examined whether it is possible to simplify the appeal

procedures concerning the application of the STC concept by making the suspensive effect of

appeals against inadmissibility decisions non-automatic.

9 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common

procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU,

COM/2016/0467 final - 2016/0224 (COD).

EN 5 EN

The question of whether an appeal against the application of the STC concept has automatic

suspensive effect is particularly important in cases of inadmissibility decisions based on the

STC concept, where the application is not examined on its merits. The nature of the

fundamental rights at risk, and particularly the risk of refoulement, makes the guarantee of the

suspensive effect of the appeal in the APR especially important. These risks were flagged

during the consultation process by some Member States, UNHCR, and civil society.

Nevertheless, removing the automatic suspensive effect of the appeal could help reduce

procedural delays in applying the STC concept and prevent potential abuses of appeal

opportunities by the applicants, while still ensuring the protection of the applicant’s

fundamental rights, by allowing them to request the suspensive effect. Furthermore, to ensure

the protection of the rights of applicants from the risk of refoulement, there is an automatic

suspensive effect against the return decision taken as per Article 37 APR in relation to the

inadmissibility decision when there is a risk of breaching the principle of non-refoulement.

This should guarantee that the persons shall not be transferred where there is a risk of

refoulement in the third country, or where there is a risk of serious harm, or inhuman or

degrading treatment, in the third country.

Conclusions of the review

The Commission has carefully weighed the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative

for revising the APR provisions concerning the application of the STC concept. On balance, it

considers that a combination of measures is most likely to achieve the desired flexibility and

facilitate the application of the STC concept by Member States, while maintaining essential

safeguards, protecting fundamental rights and addressing the concerns expressed by some

stakeholders, as reflected in this proposal.

This proposal therefore would allow, but not require, Member States to apply the STC

concept when (i) there is a connection between the applicant and a safe third country in

question, or (ii) where the applicant has transited through a safe third country, or (iii) in case

of no connection or transit, when there is an agreement or arrangement with a safe third

country requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made

by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement. The last option should not apply to

unaccompanied minors, for which connection or transit would always be required. In addition,

Member States should ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in

all decisions concerning minors.

It also simplifies the appeal procedures on the application of the STC concept by proposing to

make non-automatic the suspensive effect of appeals against inadmissibility decisions taken

on the STC ground.

• Objectives of the proposal

The main objective of this proposal is to make a targeted amendment to the Asylum

Procedure Regulation 2024/1348 so as to facilitate the application of the STC concept.

• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area

This proposal stems from Article 77 of the APR which tasks the Commission with reviewing

the STC concept by 12 June 2025 and proposing, where appropriate, any targeted

amendments. It is fully consistent with the objectives of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, as

adopted on 14 May 2024. It is also aligned with the other legislative instruments adopted in

relation to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, notably the Qualification Regulation, the recast

Reception Conditions Directive, the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, the

Screening Regulation and the Eurodac Regulation.

EN 6 EN

Additionally, the proposal for the revision of the safe third country concept is consistent with

the proposal for a Return Regulation10 insofar as the latter expands the scope of the EU rules

on return to also cover returns carried out under the STC concept and upholds the safeguards

(already) available to returnees under EU return rules, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

and the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the respect of the principle of

non-refoulement.

• Consistency with other Union policies

This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive, long-term approach to more effective and

coherent migration management, as set out in the Pact on Migration and Asylum involving,

inter alia, placing migration at the centre of partnership and cooperation relations with third

countries. From this perspective, and taking into account the proposal’s objective to guarantee

the right to seek asylum as well as upholding fundamental rights of refugees, asylum seekers

and migrants regardless of their status, the proposal aligns with the EU’s commitment to the

objectives of the Global Refugee Compact.

The proposal supports the overall objectives of the Pact, and in particular the goal of making

the processing of asylum applications in the EU more efficient and finding solutions to

cooperate and share the burden with third countries.

2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY

• Legal basis

The legal basis for the proposal is Article 78(2), point (d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of

the European Union (TFEU).

• Variable geometry

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of Ireland in respect of

the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU)

and to the TFEU, Ireland shall not take part in the adoption and shall not be bound by any

measure adopted pursuant to Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, which includes measures

establishing a Common European Asylum System. However, pursuant to Article 3 of that

Protocol, Ireland may decide to take part in the adoption and application of such measures.

Ireland has given notice of its wish to take part in the Asylum Procedure Regulation. It may

also choose to take part in the adoption and application of the present proposal, which amends

the Asylum Procedure Regulation, in line with Articles 3 and 4a of Protocol 21.

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to

the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject

to its application.

• Subsidiarity

The objective of this proposal is to make a targeted amendment to the Asylum Procedure

Regulation aimed at making the application of the STC concept more flexible for Member

States. The proposal maintains the optional nature of the application of the STC concept.

The new procedures should be governed by the same rules, regardless of the Member State

applying them, to ensure equity in the treatment of the applicants, third-country nationals or

10 COM(2025) 101 final.

EN 7 EN

stateless persons subject to them, as well as clarity and legal certainty for the individual.

Furthermore, Member States acting alone could create incentives for unauthorised movements

from one Member State to another, depending on whether and how they apply the STC

concept, or hamper Dublin transfers due to the divergent application of the concept.

The objectives of this proposal cannot be achieved by the Member States alone. The objective

of lifting some of the obstacles to the effective application of the STC concept calls for an EU

framework, which is necessary to ensure a consistent and coherent application of the STC

concept across Member States. The Union must therefore act and may adopt measures in

accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European

Union.

• Proportionality

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the

European Union, this proposal for a targeted amendment to the Asylum Procedure Regulation

2024/1348 does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives, namely, to

allow Member States more flexibility in the application of the STC concept in line with

international law and in full respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of

Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

• Choice of the instrument

The instrument chosen is a proposal for a Regulation amending the Asylum Procedure

Regulation.

3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER

CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

• Collection of knowledge of implementation and application of existing

legislation

For the review of the STC concept, the Commission examined whether there is scope under

international law (the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1950 European Convention of Human

Rights) to further revise the conditions for the application of the STC concept and the

associated legal safeguards with a view to facilitate the application of the concept in the

Member States. The Commission also took into account the experience of the Member States

in applying the STC concept so far, including the challenges encountered in the application of

the concept, as voiced in different fora. Finally, the Commission analysed the relevant

jurisprudence of the CJEU and of the ECtHR.

As regards the factual information on the application of the STC concept by the EU Member

States so far, the available data is not very thorough, but indications suggest that practices

have, at best, been uneven11. Three Member States do not have the STC concept covered in

national legislation12. All other Member States have the concept included in national

legislation, but there are differences in terms of its application: five Member States adopted

11 See for example EUAA (2022): Applying the Concept of Safe Countries in the Asylum Procedure;

Osso, B., 'Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: Borders, Legal Spaces,

and Asylum in the Shadow of Externalization', International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 35(3),

October 2023. Thym, D., Expert Opinion on Legal Requirements for Safe Third Countries in Asylum

Law and Practical Implementation Options, April 2024. 12 FR, IT, PL.

EN 8 EN

lists of safe third countries13, in twelve Member States the concept is applied only on a case-

by-case basis14, and six Member States do not apply the concept in practice15.

• Stakeholder consultations

The Commission consulted Member States, the European Parliament, civil society

organisations and UNHCR between December 2024 and February 2025. Discussions focused

on the connection criterion and the automatic suspensive effect of appeals against

inadmissibility decisions based on the STC ground.

Discussions with Member States took place in various fora, including Coreper, the Asylum

Working Party, Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) and

informal consultations organised by the Commission on 27 January and 27 February 2025.

Discussions with Members of the European Parliament took place on 18 February and with

civil society organisations on 19 February 2025.

In these exchanges, a large majority of Member States expressed support for reviewing the

STC concept and favoured a targeted amendment of the APR to remove the connection

criterion and the automatic suspensive effect of appeals, viewing these changes as a means to

enhance efficiency, provide greater flexibility in managing asylum applications, particularly

during times of disproportionate migratory pressure, and reduce administrative burdens. A

minority of Member States were against the deletion of the requirement of the connection

criterion and would prefer a flexible definition of connection.

Member States supporting the removal of the connection criterion as a compulsory

requirement emphasised that it would broaden the potential scope of applicants eligible for the

STC concept, allowing more asylum seekers to be considered under this framework. They

argued that this change would also provide greater flexibility in cooperating with third

countries, facilitating the establishment of new partnerships. They also contended that, by

lifting this requirement, Member States would be better positioned to respond to migratory

pressures and crises more effectively. They also pointed to potential efficiency gains, arguing

that eliminating the connection criterion would streamline application processing, reduce

administrative burdens on national authorities (as there will be no burden to prove

connection), and accelerate decision-making.

Member States not supporting the removal of the requirement of the connection criterion

warned the removal could hinder the integration of individuals in STCs and the establishment

of partnerships with third countries, increase the risks of irregular migration back to the EU

from the STC and of individuals being left without ties or guaranteed protection in the STC.

In the EU, it may also raise the risk of court litigation, and of secondary movements towards

Member States where the STC concept is either not applied or applied with the connection

requirement. Some warned that national courts may suspend Dublin transfers to Member

States where they consider that the STC concept is applied too leniently or incorrectly, as the

connection offered a safeguard. Some Member States further emphasised the need to ensure

compliance with international and human rights law, protect vulnerable applicants, avoid

shifting responsibility towards third countries, and ensure realistic implementation.

Several Member States also noted that the application of the STC concept may increase the

risk of absconding of applicants to whom the STC concept is applied. To address this risk, the

majority of Member States considered that the rules provided for by the Reception Conditions

13 BG, EE, DE, EL, HU. 14 AT, BE, CY, DK, FI, HR, IE, LV, LT, MT, NL, SE. 15 CZ, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES.

EN 9 EN

Directive, such as Articles 9 (restrictions on freedom of movement) and 10 (detention) are

sufficient, although a few Member States suggested to explore possible amendments and one

proposed to include a recital.

Consultations with Members of the European Parliament revealed important divergences of

views between Members. Some Members supported deleting the connection criterion and

removing the automatic suspensive effect of appeals, arguing that these changes would

improve efficiency and curb secondary movements. Other Members opposed both proposals,

warning that the lack of a connection criterion could hinder integration in the third country,

increase secondary movements, and leave individuals transferred to the third country without

protection, while stressing the importance of safeguarding the individual’s right to asylum in

the EU and of ensuring long-term sustainability of transfers. Additional concerns were raised

about the risk of increased court litigation and potential refoulement risks if the suspensive

effect of appeals were removed. It was also argued that the focus should remain on

implementing the Pact, rather than introducing changes that could disrupt its carefully

negotiated balance. Some Members noted that any changes to the STC concept must be

accompanied by strong cooperation arrangements with third countries, which would also

guarantee that transferred persons have access to effective protection.

Civil society organisations were generally opposed to the review of the STC concept and

highlighted several key concerns about the practical implementation of the STC concept.

They cautioned that it could lead to increased litigation, judicial interventions, and

administrative burdens, while negatively impacting the Dublin system and cooperation with

third countries. The impact on vulnerable applicants was another key concern, with calls for

the connection criterion to remain mandatory for this group.

UNHCR, while acknowledging that the connection criterion is not a requirement under

international law, reiterated its reservations about its removal, including concerns about the

long-term sustainability of the transfers in the absence of connection, and the risk that

transferred persons may remain in an unclear legal situation due to potential subsequent

rejections of protection claims also in the STC. UNHCR emphasised the need for robust

additional safeguards in the event that the connection criterion was removed. UNHCR also

expressed some concerns relating to the STC concept but not directly linked to the proposals

for revision.

Regarding the suspensive effect of appeals, the majority of Member States and some

Members of the European Parliament supported the option of non-automatic suspensive

effect. They argued that the removal of the automatic suspensive effect could reduce

procedural delays, noting that this would also be in line with the short duration of accelerated

and border procedures under the current APR. Additionally, eliminating the automatic

suspensive effect could lower financial burdens associated with providing reception

conditions for applicants whose protection claims are under examination. They also

contended that this measure could prevent the abuse of appeal opportunities by applicants

seeking to delay their removal and could help mitigate the risks of absconding and secondary

movements.

A few Member States, some Members of the European Parliament, UNHCR and the civil

society organisations expressed concerns about the removal of the automatic suspensive

effect. In their view, such a change could substantially increase the workload of appeal courts

and warned of potential refoulement risks. UNHCR considered that removing the automatic

suspensive effect could increase detention risks during appeals, and that, even if the return

decision retains a suspensive effect, there is a significant risk of wrongful transfer of

EN 10 EN

applicants at risk, as well as that, even where a removal measure is automatically suspended,

this may not ensure an effective remedy against asylum rejections based on STC.

• Evidence-based policy making

Article 77 of the APR called for the Commission to carry out a review of the STC concept

and, where necessary, propose legislative amendments by June 2025, hence before the

application of the APR in June 2026.

In reviewing the STC concept, the Commission took into account the experience of the

Member States with its application so far, including the challenges encountered, as voiced in

various fora. The Commission also undertook broad stakeholder consultation activities to

gather evidence. Finally, the Commission analysed the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of

Justice of the EU and of the European Court of Human Rights.

• Fundamental rights

This proposal respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in

particular, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the

obligations stemming from international law, in particular from the Geneva Convention on the

Status of Refugees, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, the United

Nations Convention against Torture, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child.

The proposal is consistent with Article 18 of the EU Charter, which establishes a right to

asylum in the EU. The fact that an agreement or arrangement with a third country requires the

examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made by applicants subject

to that agreement or arrangement ensures that the transferred person will receive protection in

the safe third country, if eligible. The proposal is also consistent with Article 24 of the EU

Charter, which establishes their right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-

being, and the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions relating to

children. Furthermore, the proposal guarantees that each individual applicant to whom the

STC concept is applied in a Member State will benefit in full of all the procedural guarantees

available in the APR in the context of inadmissibility procedures and appeals against

inadmissibility decisions, which are in turn fully aligned with Articles 3 and Article 4 of

Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR

on those rights.

The proposal is also consistent with the obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement,

which is safeguarded in the context of the APR, and will continue to be safeguarded under the

new rules on the application of the STC concept. Risks of refoulement must be taken into

account in the context of examining the admissibility of the asylum application based on the

STC concept, when assessing whether a third country is ‘safe’ in general, and for each

individual in particular. The proposal establishes that the effects of a return decision that is

linked to the inadmissibility decision based on the application of the STC concept, issued as

per Article 37 of the APR, shall be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has a

pending appeal where s/he has claims related to a risk of refoulement. The proposal for a

Return Regulation reaffirms this safeguard, which was already available under the current

Return Directive.

The proposal also takes into account the special needs of unaccompanied minors and aligns

with EU policies aimed at protecting the rights of the children. For unaccompanied minors,

the application of the STC concept based on the existence of a connection or transit

complements the safeguards already established in the APR. When Member States apply the

EN 11 EN

STC concept to unaccompanied minors, the APR already requires an individual assessment

based on the best interests of the child. In the context of the STC concept this assessment

includes verifying whether appropriate arrangements are in place in the third country to

protect the unaccompanied minor and ensure that they will receive support tailored to their

specific needs and immediate access to effective protection. Unaccompanied minors are in a

particular situation of vulnerability and need specific support, which often can be provided by

private actors in the host country.

The right to an effective remedy is adequately ensured when lifting the automatic suspensive

effect of the appeal against the inadmissibility decision based on the STC concept, as

applicants have the right to request in court the right to remain pending appeal.

4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

This proposal does not impose any financial or administrative burden on the Union.

Therefore, it has no impact on the Union budget. This proposal stems from the Asylum

Procedure Regulation (2024/1348) (‘APR’) that introduced several changes to the STC rules

and is therefore part of the Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in May 2024 for which

funding is already foreseen. The application of the safe third country (STC) concept is not

new for the Member States and the support to any investments needed for the application of

the STC concept is eligible under the existing Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. The

European Union Asylum Agency (EUAA) can support Member States with staff for the same

purpose, within their respective mandates.

5. OTHER ELEMENTS

• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

Under Article 75 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, Member States are obliged to develop

National Implementation Plans based on the Common Implementation Plan developed by the

Commission. The Commission must closely monitor the implementation of these national

plans. Once the legislative texts under the Pact start applying the European Union Asylum

Agency will monitor the operational and technical application of the Common European

Asylum System, pursuant to Article 14 of the EUAA Regulation 2021/2303. The application

of the STC concept will be included in the monitoring conducted by the EUAA. Furthermore,

the annual reports that the Commission must adopt under Article 9 of the Asylum and

Migration Management Regulation must include the results of the EUAA’s monitoring.

These various elements must be taken into account by the Commission when assessing

whether Member States are under migratory pressure, at risk of such pressure, or facing a

significant migratory situation. They are also relevant when determining whether a Member

State has systemic shortcomings that could lead to serious negative consequences for the

functioning of the Dublin system.

The transparency clause added in this proposal, which requires Member States to inform the

Commission and other Member States prior to concluding agreements or arrangements with

third countries, would also allow the Commission to have a complete overview on the

implementation of the STC concept.

• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Options for applying the STC concept

EN 12 EN

The application of the connection criterion, which is not required under international law, will

no longer be mandatory under EU law, which means that Member States will have the choice

whether to apply it or not.

When applying the STC concept, Member States will have three options:

1) to apply the STC where there is a connection, as defined in national law, in line with

the parameters set by CJEU case law and international standards; or

2) to apply the STC concept by considering transit as a sufficient criterion; or

3) to apply the STC concept on the basis of an agreement or arrangement with a third

country requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection

made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement. This will not apply to

unaccompanied minors.

The requirement that, in the absence of connection or transit, the STC concept should only be

applied on the basis of an agreement or arrangement with a third country means that

applicants would be able to have access to a procedure in safe third countries and receive

effective protection if justified, without prejudice to the third country deciding whether the

person satisfies the conditions for obtaining such protection.

The existence of a connection or of previous transit, establishing a link with the safe third

country, will be mandatory when the STC is applied to unaccompanied minors. This

requirement reduces their exposure to inadequate protection and social isolation.

Unaccompanied minors are in a situation of vulnerability and need additional support when

the STC concept is applied to them. This is acknowledged by the provisions of Article 59(6)

of the APR, requiring that a third country may only be considered to be safe for an

unaccompanied minor where it is not contrary to the best interests of the child and where

there are assurances that the third countries’ authorities will take charge of the unaccompanied

minor and provide immediate support and access to effective protection.

The Pact on Migration and Asylum establishes a more integrated common European system,

in which decisions taken by one Member State impact on other Member States. The asylum

and migration system of the Pact is based on trust and includes various instruments to ensure

transparency (e.g., monitoring of screening and border procedure, EUAA monitoring

mechanism) that should also apply to the STC concept. For this reason, the proposal

introduces a transparency clause requiring Member States to inform the Commission and

other Member States prior to concluding agreements or arrangements with safe third

countries. This would also help Member States and the Commission to better coordinate their

efforts towards third countries for the conclusion of agreements or arrangements, and support

the comprehensive approach in the external dimension of migration. The Commission would

also be able to monitor that agreements or arrangements with third countries meet the

conditions set by the APR.

Additionally, to limit risks associated with absconding from those Member States applying

the STC concept to other Member States not applying it, Member States should be able to

take the necessary measures to prevent unauthorised movements of the applicants to whom

the STC concept is being applied. These measures can include restricting freedom of

movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, or detaining the applicant

concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, pending the assessment of the admissibility

of the application. In this regard, it may be possible to consider there is a risk of absconding

when applying the concept.

Non-automatic suspensive effect of the appeal against inadmissibility decisions taken on

the STC ground

EN 13 EN

To enhance procedural efficiency, the Commission also proposes making non-automatic the

suspensive effect of appeals against inadmissibility decisions, without prejudice to appeals

against related return decisions where there is a risk of breaching the principle of non-

refoulement. To that end, the ground for inadmissibility checks based on the application of the

STC concept is added to Article 68 paragraph 3, point b.

EN 14 EN

2025/0132 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third

country’ concept

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular

Article 78(2), point (d), thereof

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee,

Having regard to the opinions of the Committee of the Regions,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council16

established a common procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection

in the Union. The Commission has reviewed the various elements of the concept of

safe third country, including criteria of safety, due process, the connection criterion

and the provisions on effective remedy. The review led to the conclusion that there

was scope for improving the applicability of the safe third country concept while

preserving the legal safeguards for applicants and ensuring the respect of fundamental

rights.

(2) The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not

required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international

human rights law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore,

Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country

where no connection can be established between the applicant and the safe third

country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement with the third country

concerned requires the examination of the merits of requests for effective protection

made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement.

(3) Member States should have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on

the basis of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, by

which it would be reasonable for the applicant to go to that third country.

(4) Member States should also have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept

to applicants who transited through the territory of a third country before entering the

16 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).

EN 15 EN

Union, as it is reasonable to expect that a person seeking international protection could

have applied for protection in a safe third country through which that person transited.

Previous transit through a safe third country provides an objective link between the

applicant and the third country concerned.

(5) In view of the situation of vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and of the need for

targeted support, the concept of safe third country should be applied to unaccompanied

minors only where a connection or transit can be established with the third country

concerned can be established and the conditions of Article 59(6) of Regulation (EU)

2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council are fulfilled. Member States

should ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all

decisions concerning minors.

(6) It is necessary to enhance transparency regarding the conclusion by Member States of

agreements and arrangements with safe third countries, to support Member States and

the Commission in establishing a comprehensive approach on the external dimension

of migration, and in coordinating their efforts towards third countries for applying the

safe third country concept. This would also allow for monitoring whether agreements

or arrangements with third countries fulfil the conditions set by this Regulation. It

should also enable a more consistent and coherent application of the safe third country

concept across the Union and contribute to the overall well-functioning of the

Common European Asylum System. To this end, Member States should be required to

inform the Commission and other Member States prior to the conclusion of

agreements or arrangements with third countries.

(7) Member States should be able to take the necessary measures to address the risk that

applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied abscond, including

by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346

of the European Parliament and of the Council17, or detaining the applicant concerned

in accordance with Article 10 thereof, in order to assess the admissibility of

applications.

(8) To enhance procedural efficiency, the applicant should not have an automatic right to

remain on the territory of a Member State for the purpose of an appeal against

inadmissibility decisions taken on the basis of the safe third country concept.

Nonetheless, the enforcement of the corresponding return decision is to be suspended

during the time limit within which the person concerned can exercise his or her right

to an effective remedy before a court of first instance and when such appeal is lodged

where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

(9) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the revision of the conditions for the

application of the safe third country concept, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the

Member States and can only be achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt

measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the

Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality,

as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order

to achieve that objective.

17 Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down

standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024 , ELI:

http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj).

EN 16 EN

(10) [In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of

the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice,

annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union, Ireland has notified [, by letter of …,] its wish to take part in the

adoption and application of this [act.]

OR

[In accordance with Articles 1, 2 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position

of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and

justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning

of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is

not taking part in the adoption of this [act] and is not bound by it or subject to its

application.]

(11) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark

annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is

not bound by it or subject to its application.

(12) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised

in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(13) Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is amended as follows:

(1) Article 59(5) is amended as follows:

(a) point (b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b) one of the following conditions is met:

i) there is a connection between the applicant and the third country

concerned, on the basis of which it would be reasonable for him or her

to go to that country;

ii) the applicant has transited through the third country concerned;

iii) there is an agreement or an arrangement with the third country

concerned requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for

effective protection made by applicants subject to that agreement or

arrangement.’

(b) the following two subparagraphs are added:

‘In the application of the first paragraph, point (b), the best interests of the

child shall be a primary consideration. The first paragraph, point (b)(iii), shall

not apply where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor.

Member States shall inform the Commission and the other Member States

prior to concluding an agreement or arrangement as referred to in the first

paragraph, point (b)(iii).’

(2) In Article 68 (3), point (b) is replaced by the following:

EN 17 EN

‘(b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article

38(1), point (a), (b), (d) or (e), or Article 38(2), except where the applicant is

an unaccompanied minor subject to the border procedure.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the

Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in

accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament for the Council

The President The President

EN 1 EN

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL AND DIGITAL STATEMENT

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ................................................. 3

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative ...................................................................................... 3

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned .............................................................................................. 3

1.3. Objective(s) .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1. General objective(s) ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3.2. Specific objective(s) ..................................................................................................... 3

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact ...................................................................................... 3

1.3.4. Indicators of performance ............................................................................................ 3

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to: ................................................................................. 4

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative .............................................................................. 4

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long-term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative ............................................................ 4

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For

the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting

from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise

created by Member States alone. ................................................................................. 4

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past .................................................. 4

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments ....................................................................................... 5

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment ................................................................................................................ 5

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact .................................... 6

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned ............................................................. 6

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................... 8

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules .................................................................................... 8

2.2. Management and control system(s) ............................................................................. 8

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed .................. 8

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up

to mitigate them............................................................................................................ 8

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between

the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the

expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure) ........................................... 8

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities ................................................................ 9

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............ 10

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s)

affected ....................................................................................................................... 10

EN 2 EN

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations ................................... 12

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations.................................... 12

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget ............................................................................. 12

3.2.1.2. Appropriations from external assigned revenues ....................................................... 17

3.2.2. Estimated output funded from operational appropriations......................................... 22

3.2.3. Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations ............................... 24

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget .............................................................................. 24

3.2.3.2. Appropriations from external assigned revenues ....................................................... 24

3.2.3.3. Total appropriations ................................................................................................... 24

3.2.4. Estimated requirements of human resources.............................................................. 25

3.2.4.1. Financed from voted budget....................................................................................... 25

3.2.4.2. Financed from external assigned revenues ................................................................ 26

3.2.4.3. Total requirements of human resources ..................................................................... 26

3.2.5. Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments ................ 28

3.2.6. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework.............................. 28

3.2.7. Third-party contributions ........................................................................................... 28

3.3. Estimated impact on revenue ..................................................................................... 29

4. DIGITAL DIMENSIONS .......................................................................................... 29

4.1. Requirements of digital relevance .............................................................................. 30

4.2. Data ............................................................................................................................ 30

4.3. Digital solutions ......................................................................................................... 31

4.4. Interoperability assessment ........................................................................................ 31

4.5. Measures to support digital implementation .............................................................. 32

EN 3 EN

1. FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1. Title of the proposal/initiative

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’

concept.

1.2. Policy area(s) concerned

Asylum

1.3. Objective(s)

1.3.1. General objective(s)

This proposal responds to the requirement of the Asylum Procedure Regulation

2024/1348 for the Commission to review the STC concept and, where appropriate,

propose targeted amendments to facilitate its application. It aims to enhance the

application of the STC concept in the EU asylum framework.

In line with the Pact on Migration and Asylum, this proposal reinforces partnership-

based cooperation with third countries, ensuring that STC agreements and

arrangements are mutually beneficial, uphold responsibility-sharing principles, and

fully respect fundamental rights. By addressing protection needs and ensuring

compliance with international obligations, the proposal also contributes to the EU’s

commitments under the Global Refugee Compact.

1.3.2. Specific objective(s)

Specific objective No 1

The first objective of this proposal is to make targeted amendments to the Asylum

Procedure Regulation 2024/1348 so as to facilitate the application of the STC

concept by Member States.

1.3.3. Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

1. Improve legal clarity and consistency in applying the STC concept.

2. Provide Member States with more flexibility in applying the concept, while

ensuring compliance with international obligations and fundamental rights.

3. Enhance the efficiency of asylum procedures and reduce pressure on and

abuses of EU asylum systems.

1.3.4. Indicators of performance

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements.

Impact of the amendments on the following:

1. Number of Member States using the STC concept (using the connection

criterion, the transit criterion or based on agreement or arrangements with

STCs).

2. Number of asylum claims rejected as inadmissible based on STC grounds and

number of appeals.

EN 4 EN

3. Number of STC agreements or arrangements at Union or Member State level.

1.4. The proposal/initiative relates to:

 a new action

 a new action following a pilot project / preparatory action18

 the extension of an existing action

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action

1.5. Grounds for the proposal/initiative

1.5.1. Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative

Under Article 75 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, Member States are required

to develop National Implementation Plans based on the Common Implementation

Plan developed by the Commission. The Commission has to closely monitor the

implementation of the national implementation plans. Once the provisions of the Pact

start applying in June 2026, the European Union Asylum Agency will monitor the

operational and technical application of the Common European Asylum System

pursuant to Article 14 of the EUAA Regulation 2021/2303. The application of the

STC concept will be part of the monitoring by EUAA. Furthermore, the annual

reports that the Commission must adopt pursuant to Article 9 of the Asylum and

Migration Management Regulation must include the results of the monitoring of the

EUAA. These various elements have to be taken into account by the Commission

when assessing whether Member States are under migratory pressure, at risk thereof,

or facing a significant migratory situation, as well as when determining whether a

Member State has systemic shortcomings that could result in serious negative

consequences for the functioning of the Dublin system.

1.5.2. Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g.

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For

the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting

from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise

created by Member States alone.

Reasons for action at EU level (ex-ante): the STC concept and asylum procedure are

governed by EU law under the Asylum Procedure Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.

Without EU-level action, Member States would continue to apply the STC concept in

a fragmented manner, leading to inconsistencies in legal interpretation and

procedural safeguards. Diverging national approaches would create legal uncertainty,

increase litigation risks, and undermine the uniform application of asylum rules

across the Union. A lack of coordinated action would also hinder fair burden-sharing

among Member States and weaken the EU’s ability to engage effectively with third

countries on migration matters. By acting at the EU level, this proposal ensures

harmonisation, legal certainty, and procedural safeguards, while providing Member

States with greater flexibility to implement the STC concept in a legally sound and

operationally effective manner.

18 As referred to in Article 58(2), point (a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

EN 5 EN

Expected generated EU added value (ex-post): once implemented, this proposal will

enhance legal certainty and procedural efficiency by ensuring that all Member States

apply the STC concept consistently. The removal of the automatic suspensive effect

of appeals will reduce delays in asylum decision-making, enabling faster processing

of inadmissible claims, while maintaining access to effective legal remedies.

The proposal will also strengthen cooperation with third countries by providing a

clear legal framework for STC application, whether or not a connection exists,

provided that agreements or arrangements are in place. Furthermore, the

transparency clause will enable the Commission to monitor the compliance of

agreements or arrangements with the APR, safeguarding EU credibility in migration

partnerships.

At the EU level, monitoring by the EUAA and the Commission will ensure that

Member States apply the revised STC rules in full compliance with fundamental

rights and procedural safeguards. While the proposal limits the automatic suspensive

effect of appeals, it maintains essential legal protections by requiring that return

decisions be suspended at the first level of appeal when there is a risk to breach the

principle of non-refoulement. These measures strike a balance between efficiency

and fairness, ensuring that the EU asylum system remains effective, predictable, and

aligned with international human rights obligations.

1.5.3. Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

Application of the STC concept varies amongst Member States and is not applied by

all, making comparisons difficult. The Commission adopted a holistic approach in

reviewing the STC concept. They examined whether international law (the 1951

Geneva Convention and the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights) allows for

further revisions to the conditions for applying the STC concept and its legal

safeguards, with the aim of facilitating the application of the concept in the Member

States. The Commission also considered Member States’ experiences and challenges

in applying the STC concept, as voiced in different fora, and assessed whether the

changes introduced under the APR had already addressed these issues or if gaps

remained. Finally, the Commission analysed relevant jurisprudence of the Court of

Justice of the EU and of the European Court of Human Rights.

1.5.4. Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with

other appropriate instruments

This proposal stems from the APR that introduced several changes to the STC rules

and is therefore part of the Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in May 2024 for

which funding is already foreseen. This proposal does not impose any financial or

administrative burden on the Union. Therefore, it has no impact on the Union budget.

The application of the STC concept is not new for the Member States. Member

States will be able to make use of the funds allocated under their national

programmes under both the existing Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund to

support any investments needed for the application of the STC concept. The EUAA

can support Member States with staff for the same purpose, within their respective

mandates.

1.5.5. Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for

redeployment

Not applicable.

EN 6 EN

1.6. Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact

 limited duration

–  in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

–  financial impact from YYYY to YYYY for commitment appropriations and

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.

 unlimited duration

– Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY to YYYY,

– followed by full-scale operation.

1.7. Method(s) of budget implementation planned19

 Direct management by the Commission

–  by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;

–  by the executive agencies

 Shared management with the Member States

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:

–  third countries or the bodies they have designated

–  international organisations and their agencies (to be specified)

–  the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund

–  bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation

–  public law bodies

–  bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that

they are provided with adequate financial guarantees

–  bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with

the implementation of a public-private partnership and that are provided with

adequate financial guarantees

–  bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the

common foreign and security policy pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on

European Union, and identified in the relevant basic act

–  bodies established in a Member State, governed by the private law of a

Member State or Union law and eligible to be entrusted, in accordance with

sector-specific rules, with the implementation of Union funds or budgetary

guarantees, to the extent that such bodies are controlled by public law bodies or

by bodies governed by private law with a public service mission, and are provided

with adequate financial guarantees in the form of joint and several liability by the

controlling bodies or equivalent financial guarantees and which may be, for each

action, limited to the maximum amount of the Union support.

19 Details of budget implementation methods and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on

the BUDGpedia site: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/corp/budget/financial-rules/budget-

implementation/Pages/implementation-methods.aspx.

EN 7 EN

2. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1. Monitoring and reporting rules

Under Article 75 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, Member

States must develop National Implementation Plans based on the Common

Implementation Plan set by the Commission, which will closely monitor their

implementation. Once the provisions of the Pact start applying in June 2026, the

EUAA will oversee the operational and technical application of the Common

European Asylum System under Article 14 of the EUAA Regulation (EU)

2021/2303, including the implementation of the STC concept.

The Commission’s annual reports under Article 9 of the Asylum and Migration

Management Regulation will include EUAA’s monitoring results, assessing whether

Member States are under migratory pressure or facing systemic shortcomings that

could affect the functioning of the Dublin system, including linked to the application

of the STC concept. The added transparency clause will allow the Commission to

monitor agreements and arrangements with third countries in light of the APR

requirements.

2.2. Management and control system(s)

2.2.1. Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation

mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed

Not applicable.

2.2.2. Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up

to mitigate them

One of the risks associated with the proposal is that Member States may establish

agreements or arrangements with third countries that do not meet the necessary

standards. To mitigate this risk, a transparency clause has been introduced, according

to which Member States need to inform the Commission and other Member States

prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements.

2.2.3. Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between

the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the

expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)

Not applicable

2.3. Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

Not applicable

EN 8 EN

3. ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1. Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget

line(s) affected

Section 3 not applicable as no financial or staff implications.

EN 9 EN

3.2. Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below

3.2.1.1. Appropriations from voted budget

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework Number

Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

TOTAL operational appropriations

Commitments (4) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Payments (5) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific programmes (6) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations under

HEADING <….> Commitments =4+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of the multiannual financial framework Payments =5+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Heading of multiannual financial framework 7 ‘Administrative expenditure’20

DG: <…….> Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2021-

2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

 Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

 Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

20 The necessary appropriations should be determined using the annual average cost figures available on the appropriate BUDGpedia webpage.

EN 10 EN

TOTAL DG <…….> Appropriations 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

DG: <…….> Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2021-

2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

 Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

 Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL DG <…….> Appropriations 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial

framework

(Total

commitments

= Total

payments)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 7 Commitments 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of the multiannual financial framework Payments 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.2.1.2. Appropriations from external assigned revenues

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework Number

DG: <…….> Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

Operational appropriations

Budget line Commitments (1a) 0.000

EN 11 EN

Payments (2a) 0.000

Budget line Commitments (1b) 0.000

Payments (2b) 0.000

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope of specific programmes21

Budget line (3) 0.000

TOTAL appropriations

for DG <…….>

Commitments =1a+1b+3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Payments =2a+2b+3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Mandatory table:

Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

TOTAL operational appropriations

Commitments (4) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Payments (5) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific programmes (6) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations under

HEADING <….> Commitments =4+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of the multiannual financial framework Payments =5+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Mandatory table

Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

TOTAL operational appropriations Commitments (4) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

21 Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research.

EN 12 EN

Payments (5) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific programmes (6) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations under

HEADING <….> Commitments =4+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of the multiannual financial framework Payments =5+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

• TOTAL operational appropriations (all

operational headings)

Commitments (4) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Payments (5) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

• TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed

from the envelope for specific programmes (all operational

headings)

(6) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations under Headings 1

to 6 Commitments =4+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of the multiannual financial framework (Reference

amount) Payments =5+6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Heading of multiannual financial framework 7 ‘Administrative expenditure’22

EUR million (to three decimal places)

DG: <…….> Year Year Year Year TOTAL

22 The necessary appropriations should be determined using the annual average cost figures available on the appropriate BUDGpedia webpage.

EN 13 EN

2024 2025 2026 2027 MFF 2021-

2027

 Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

 Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL DG <…….> Appropriations 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

DG: <…….> Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF 2021-

2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

 Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

 Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL DG <…….> Appropriations 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 7 of the multiannual

financial framework

(Total

commitments

= Total

payments)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year Year Year Year TOTAL MFF

2021-2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 7 Commitments 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

of the multiannual financial framework Payments 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.2.2. Estimated output funded from operational appropriations (not to be completed for decentralised agencies)

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Indicate

objectives and

outputs

Year 2024

Year 2025

Year 2026

Year 2027

Enter as many years as necessary to show the

duration of the impact (see Section1.6) TOTAL

OUTPUTS

EN 14 EN

 Type23

Avera

ge

cost

N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost N o

Cost Total

No

Total

cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 124…

- Output

- Output

- Output

Subtotal for specific objective No 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2 ...

- Output

Subtotal for specific objective No 2

TOTALS

23 Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g. number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 24 As described in Section 1.3.2. ‘Specific objective(s)’

EN 15 EN

3.2.3. Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an

administrative nature

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative

nature, as explained below

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS Year Year Year Year TOTAL

2021 - 2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

HEADING 7

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal HEADING 7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Outside HEADING 7

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Other expenditure of an administrative nature 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal outside HEADING 7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.2.3.3. Total appropriations

TOTAL

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS +

EXTERNAL ASSIGNED REVENUES

Year Year Year Year TOTAL

2021 -

2027 2024 2025 2026 2027

HEADING 7

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Other administrative expenditure 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal HEADING 7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Outside HEADING 7

Human resources 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Other expenditure of an administrative nature 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal outside HEADING 7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

The appropriations required for human resources and other expenditure of an administrative nature

will be met by appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to management of the action

and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together, if necessary, with any additional allocation

which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of

budgetary constraints.

3.2.4. Estimated requirements of human resources

–  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources

–  The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained

below

EN 16 EN

3.2.4.1. Financed from voted budget

Estimate to be expressed in full-time equivalent units (FTEs)25

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS Year Year Year Year

2024 2025 2026 2027

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 0 0 0 0

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0

• External staff (inFTEs)

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’) 0 0 0 0

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0

Admin. Support

line

[XX.01.YY.YY]

- at Headquarters 0 0 0 0

- in EU Delegations 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 02 (AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 12 (AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 7 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Outside Heading 7 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 0

3.2.4.2. Financed from external assigned revenues

EXTERNAL ASSIGNED REVENUES Year Year Year Year

2024 2025 2026 2027

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 0 0 0 0

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0

• External staff (in full time equivalent units)

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’) 0 0 0 0

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0

Admin. Support line

[XX.01.YY.YY]

- at Headquarters 0 0 0 0

- in EU Delegations 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 02 (AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 12 (AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 7 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Outside Heading 7 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 0

25 Please specify below the table how many FTEs within the number indicated are already assigned to the

management of the action and/or can be redeployed within your DG and what are your net needs.

EN 17 EN

3.2.4.3. Total requirements of human resources

TOTAL VOTED APPROPRIATIONS +

EXTERNAL ASSIGNED REVENUES

Year Year Year Year

2024 2025 2026 2027

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 0 0 0 0

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) 0 0 0 0

• External staff (in full time equivalent units)

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’) 0 0 0 0

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations) 0 0 0 0

Admin. Support

line

[XX.01.YY.YY]

- at Headquarters 0 0 0 0

- in EU Delegations 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 02 (AC, END - Indirect research) 0 0 0 0

01 01 01 12 (AC, END - Direct research) 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 7 0 0 0 0

Other budget lines (specify) - Outside Heading 7 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 0

[Considering the overall strained situation in Heading 7, in terms of both staffing and the level of

appropriations, the human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already

assigned to the management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG or other

Commission services.]

Description of tasks to be carried out by:

Officials and temporary staff

External staff

3.2.5. Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments

Compulsory: the best estimate of the digital technology-related investments entailed

by the proposal/initiative should be included in the table below.

Exceptionally, when required for the implementation of the proposal/initiative, the

appropriations under Heading 7 should be presented in the designated line.

The appropriations under Headings 1-6 should be reflected as “Policy IT expenditure

on operational programmes”. This expenditure refers to the operational budget to be

used to re-use/ buy/ develop IT platforms/ tools directly linked to the implementation

of the initiative and their associated investments (e.g. licences, studies, data storage

etc). The information provided in this table should be consistent with details

presented under Section 4 “Digital dimensions”.

TOTAL Digital and IT appropriations Year Year Year Year TOTAL

MFF

EN 18 EN

2024 2025 2026 2027 2021 -

2027

HEADING 7

IT expenditure (corporate) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal HEADING 7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Outside HEADING 7

Policy IT expenditure on operational programmes

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Subtotal outside HEADING 7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

TOTAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

3.2.6. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework

The proposal/initiative:

–  can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the

multiannual financial framework (MFF)

Not applicable.

–  requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF

and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation

Not applicable.

–  requires a revision of the MFF

Not applicable.

3.2.7. Third-party contributions

The proposal/initiative:

–  does not provide for co-financing by third parties

–  provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)

Year 2024

Year 2025

Year 2026

Year 2027

Total

Specify the co-financing body

TOTAL appropriations co-

financed

3.3. Estimated impact on revenue

–  The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

–  The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

–  on own resources

–  on other revenue

–  please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines

EUR million (to three decimal places)

EN 19 EN

Budget revenue line:

Appropriations

available for the

current financial

year

Impact of the proposal/initiative26

Year 2024 Year 2025 Year 2026 Year 2027

Article ………….

For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

Not applicable

Other remarks (e.g. method/formula used for calculating the impact on revenue or

any other information).

Not applicable

4. DIGITAL DIMENSIONS

Not applicable. The proposal is a targeted amendment to the APR which is part of the Pact.

All the digital elements are in the pact not here.

4.1. Requirements of digital relevance

Not applicable

4.2. Data

Not applicable

4.3. Digital solutions

4.4. Interoperability assessment

4.5. Measures to support digital implementation

26 As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net

amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20% for collection costs.

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

    Resolutsiooni liik: Riigikantselei resolutsioon Viide: Siseministeerium /  / ; Riigikantselei /  / 2-5/25-01165

Resolutsiooni teema: ELi turvalise kolmanda riigi kontseptsiooni kohaldamise määrus

Adressaat: Siseministeerium Ülesanne: Tulenevalt Riigikogu kodu- ja töökorra seaduse § 152` lg 1 p 2 ning Vabariigi Valitsuse reglemendi § 3 lg 4 palun valmistada ette Vabariigi Valitsuse seisukoha ja otsuse eelnõu järgneva algatuse kohta, kaasates seejuures olulisi huvigruppe ja osapooli:

- Ettepanek: EUROOPA PARLAMENDI JA NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS, millega muudetakse määrust (EL) 2024/1348 seoses turvalise kolmanda riigi kontseptsiooni rakendamisega, COM(2025) 259.

EISi toimiku nr: 25-0246

Tähtaeg: 11.07.2025

Adressaat: [email protected], Justiits- ja Digiministeerium, Välisministeerium Ülesanne: Palun esitada oma sisend Siseministeeriumile seisukohtade kujundamiseks antud eelnõu kohta (eelnõude infosüsteemi (EIS) kaudu).

Tähtaeg: 04.07.2025

Lisainfo: Eelnõu on kavas arutada valitsuse 24.07.2025 istungil ja Vabariigi Valitsuse reglemendi § 6 lg 6 kohaselt sellele eelneval nädalal (16.07.2025) EL koordinatsioonikogus. Esialgsed materjalid EL koordinatsioonikoguks palume esitada hiljemalt 11.07.2025.

Kinnitaja: Nele Grünberg, Euroopa Liidu asjade direktori asetäitja Kinnitamise kuupäev: 12.06.2025 Resolutsiooni koostaja: Elen Nurme [email protected], 693 5201  

.

10.06.2025

Ettepanek: EUROOPA PARLAMENDI JA NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS, millega muudetakse määrust (EL) 2024/1348 seoses turvalise kolmanda riigi kontseptsiooni rakendamisega, COM(2025)259 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’

concept

Otsuse ettepanek koordinatsioonikogule

Kujundada seisukoht

KOKi esitamise tähtpäev 16.07.2025

VV esitamise tähtpäev 24.07.2025

Subsidiaarsuse tähtpäev - ei ole veel määratud

Põhivastutaja Siseministeerium

Kaasvastutajad (sisendi andmise tähtaeg 04.07.2025) Justiits- ja Digiministeerium, Välisministeerium, Õiguskantsleri Büroo

Seisukoha valitsusse toomise alus ja põhjendus

Algatuse reguleerimisala nõuab seaduse või Riigikogu otsuse vastuvõtmist, muutmist või kehtetuks tunnistamist (RKKTS § 1521 lg 1 p1); algatuse vastuvõtmisega kaasneks oluline majanduslik või sotsiaalne mõju (RKKTS § 152¹ lg 1 p 2)

Sisukokkuvõte

Komisjoni 20.05.2025 avaldatud ettepanek käsitleb eeskirju, mis hõlbustavad turvalise kolmanda riigi kontseptsiooni kohaldamist liikmesriikides. Turvalise kolmanda riigi mõiste läbivaatamine 12. juuniks 2025 oli varjupaigamenetluse määruse kohane nõue. 

Turvalise kolmanda riigi mõiste võimaldab liikmesriikidel pidada varjupaigataotlust vastuvõetamatuks, kui taotlejad võiksid saada tõhusat kaitset kolmandas riigis, mida peetakse nende jaoks turvaliseks. Selle mõiste kohaldamiseks nõutakse praegu ELi õiguses, et varjupaigaasutused tõendaksid seost taotleja ja asjaomase turvalise kolmanda riigi vahel.

Komisjon on teinud ettepaneku muuta turvalise kolmanda riigi mõiste kohaldamise tingimusi järgmiselt:

2

 Seose tõendamine taotleja ja turvalise kolmanda riigi vahel ei ole enam kohustuslik. Liikmesriigid võivad samas otsustada kohaldada turvalise kolmanda riigi mõistet ka edaspidi kitsamalt st jääb võimalus siseriiklikus õiguses seada seose tõendamise nõue.

 Transiiti läbi turvalise kolmanda riigi enne ELi jõudmist võib nüüd samuti pidada piisavaks seoseks turvalise kolmanda riigi mõiste kohaldamiseks.

 Kui ühendus või transiit puudub, võib seda mõistet kohaldada juhul, kui turvalise kolmanda riigiga on sõlmitud leping või kokkulepe. Selline leping või kokkulepe tagab, et turvalises kolmandas riigis esitatud rahvusvahelise kaitse taotlus vaadatakse läbi, et taotlejad saaksid põhjendatud juhtudel kaitset. Seda võimalust ei kohaldata saatjata alaealiste suhtes.

 Lisaks teeb komisjon menetluslike viivituste vähendamiseks ja kuritarvituste vältimiseks ettepaneku, et turvalise kolmanda riigi kontseptsioonil põhinevate vastuvõetamatuse otsuste edasikaebamisel ei oleks enam automaatset peatavat mõju.

Kas EL algatus reguleerib karistusi või haldustrahve? EI

Kas nähakse ette uue asutuse loomine (järelevalvelised või muud asutused)? EI

Kas lahenduse rakendamine vajab IT-arendusi? EI

Mõju ja sihtrühm

Mõju valdkonnad

Siseturvalisus

Komisjoni pakutud varjupaigamenetluse määruse muudatusettepanek kiirendab varjupaigamenetlusi ja vähendab survet varjupaigasüsteemidele, säilitades samal ajal taotlejate õiguslikud tagatised ja tagades põhiõiguste austamise.

Põhiõigused

ELi õiguse kohaselt võib kolmandaid riike pidada turvaliseks, kui nad täidavad mitmeid tingimusi, nagu kaitse tagasi- ja väljasaatmise eest, tõsise kahju ning elu ja vabadust ähvardava ohu puudumine rassi, usu, rahvuse, sotsiaalsesse rühma kuulumise või poliitiliste vaadete tõttu, samuti võimalus taotleda ja saada tõhusat kaitset.

Ettepanekus nõutakse, et liikmesriigid teavitaksid komisjoni ja teisi liikmesriike enne lepingute või kokkulepete sõlmimist turvaliste kolmandate riikidega. See võimaldab komisjonil jälgida, kas need lepingud või kokkulepped vastavad ELi õiguses sätestatud tingimustele.

3

Kaasamine

Kaasata rahvusvahelise kaitse sotsiaalpartnereid (Eesti Pagulasabi, IOM, UNCHR, Inimõiguste keskus)