EU pact on migration and asylum

EU pact on migration and asylum: European Parliament accelerates dismantling of guarantees for protection seekers

FEBRUARY 11, 2026 – Yesterday, the European Parliament approved two central pieces of legislation in the new European Pact on Migration and Asylum: the common EU list of safe countries of origin and the new safe third country concept. This is an extremely important political step, marking a further and worrying retreat in the guarantees provided for people seeking international protection in the European Union.

The approved amendments reinforce an approach that progressively empties the right to asylum of its individual dimension, replacing the actual examination of individual stories with security presumptions, automatisms and accelerated procedures.

An EU list of safe countries of origin: downward harmonization of rights

The introduction of a common European list of safe countries of origin, through the amendment to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, is presented as an instrument of harmonization. In reality, it risks translating into a downward harmonization of guarantees, compressing the right to an effective individual assessment of asylum claims. Particularly alarming is the provision that EU candidate countries are automatically considered “safe,” a criterion that is legally weak and wholly inadequate for assessing the risk of persecution or violations of fundamental rights. Similar critical issues arise in the designation of additional third countries as “safe,” including Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia, based on cursory assessments and primarily statistical criteria, such as low rates of recognition of asylum applications.

This approach also undermines the right to effective protection by favoring quick and simplified procedures that reduce the chances of defense, even when there are real risks to those involved.

Among the most critical aspects of the application of border procedures emerges the inability to ensure adequate and thorough screening of individual vulnerabilities and protection needs. Short timeframes, lack of structured multidisciplinary assessments, and detention conditions severely limit the ability to correctly identify individuals with specific needs, with the real risk of exposing them to hasty decisions potentially detrimental to their fundamental rights.

Even more serious is the choice to selectively advance certain provisions of the Covenant, prior to its full entry into force. The immediate application of the safe country of origin concept and the extension of accelerated procedures even on the basis of statistical thresholds appear functional to respond to specific political pressures from some member states. In particular, this regulatory acceleration seems aimed at legitimizing bilateral agreements such as the Italy/Albania Protocol, circumventing the limits of the current legal framework and sacrificing the already fragile guarantees provided by the Covenant as a whole. The result is an incoherent, uneven and highly unbalanced system to the detriment of fundamental rights.

“Safe” third countries and the externalization of asylum

The new safe third country concept further lowers standards of protection. “Safety” is assessed on the basis of minimal and formal requirements, without concrete verification of effective protection of rights, in open contradiction to the standards of the 1951 Geneva Convention. This reinforces the mechanisms of inadmissibility of asylum applications, allowing transfers to third countries even in the absence of any real connection with the applicant, or, in the presence of a bilateral agreement for the admission of asylum seekers, even to countries where the person has never been, and before an effective remedy is guaranteed. It is a model that institutionalizes the externalization of asylum, prioritizing speed and containment of flows over the protection of individuals.

In addition, the extension of the “safe third country” concept and the strengthening of mechanisms for outsourcing asylum procedures also imply the transfer of people to settings where the right to health is not adequately guaranteed, with serious consequences for continuity of care, particularly for those with medical and psychological vulnerabilities.

As organizations, we express strong concern about a regulatory development that undermines the heart of asylum in the European Union. We call on European and national institutions to stop this process of dismantling guarantees, to comply with international obligations and to put the protection of the fundamental rights of people seeking protection back at the center. The right to asylum is a legal and political responsibility that the European Union cannot shirk.

For the Asylum and Immigration Table:
A Buon Diritto, ACLI, ActionAid, ARCI, ASCS, ASGI, Casa dei Diritti Sociali, Centro Astalli, CGIL, CIES, CIR, CNCA, Combonian Missionaries Italian Province Migrantes Commission, EMERGENCY, Europasilo, Migrantes Foundation, Forum to Change the Order of Things/Road Map for the Right to Asylum, Doctors of the World Italy, Doctors for Human Rights, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam Italy, RECoSol, Refugees Welcome Italy, Italians Without Citizenship, SIMM, UNIRE.