A ruling by the European Court of Justice on safe countries of origin received a lot of coverage in the German media – but it is unlikely to have a lasting effect. The case concerned two men from Bangladesh whose asylum applications had been rejected by the Italian authorities. For Italy, Bangladesh was previously considered a safe country of origin; safe for almost all people in any case. However, the ECJ, which received the case from the Italian courts for review, has now ruled: A country of origin can only be considered safe if it is safe for people of all groups without distinction. For example, a country such as Bangladesh, where LGBTQI people are persecuted, cannot be considered safe. This is clear from the ECJ's ruling at the beginning of August (Case C-758/24 and C-759/24).
However, the decision was not surprising: "Against the backdrop of the Italian dispute and the center in Albania, the ECJ ruling has more of a political significance than a substantive one. In principle, the court has only interpreted the wording of the currently applicable law," said Wiebke Judith, legal policy spokesperson for Pro Asyl, in an interview with Table.Briefings. In October 2024, the ECJ had already ruled in a similar way and declared that a country of origin could not be considered partially safe, but only as a whole.
With the CEAS reform, the CJEU ruling will once again become moot and flexibility will be possible for safe countries of origin. From June 2026, the reform of the Common European Asylum System is set to change laws across the EU – and this will remove the reference basis for the current ECJ ruling, i.e. the law currently in force. This means that EU member states will be able to declare parts of countries as safe or classify an entire country as safe for certain groups of people.
The EU has initiated a move to bring forward precisely this part of the CEAS reform. To this end, an EU-wide list of safe countries of origin is currently being discussed in Brussels. The list is to include Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia. At the same time, the EU member states can continue to maintain their own lists. Germany has so far defined Ghana and Senegal as safe countries of origin in Africa. The black-red coalition would like to add Tunisia to this list in future. A cabinet bill provides for safe countries of origin to be determined by statutory order in future – both with regard to international refugee law and the right to asylum set out in the German Basic Law. In the past, the Bundesrat has repeatedly blocked plans to designate safe countries of origin.
While the CEAS reform is being discussed in Brussels, the EU Commission is also bypassing Parliament in its migration policy. This is because one element remains unaffected by the reform: the migration agreements that the EU concludes with third countries such as Egypt, Niger and Mauritania. "EU migration agreements are a black box, as they are not made public and often bypass the EU Parliament. In practice, they certainly mean the biggest changes for people on the move. The aim is to prevent people from entering the EU in the first place, where the much-discussed EU law would apply. But if people can no longer reach the EU, then even good laws won't help them," says Judith from Pro Asyl. The fact that the EU Parliament is not involved in EU migration agreements is a constant source of resentment in Brussels.
The EU migration agreements are particularly relevant for refugees in Africa. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen speaks of "migration partnerships", such as in Mauritania in March. A recent report by Human Rights Watch documented massive violations of the human rights of refugees there. The EU is "outsourcing" the handling of migrants (migration management).
According to observations by Pro Asyl, day-to-day politics at national level are exerting more and more pressure on how EU countries deal with migration. "In the opinion of many politicians, laws should be based on what the political will is. When in doubt, a government then waits to see whether the courts will stop its own actions. Or they try to override the law by declaring alleged states of emergency. And in the most extreme cases, the legitimacy of the courts themselves is called into question. In this respect, it is fair to say that the executive is gaining more weight in migration policy," said Judith.
What is likely to remain from the ECJ ruling, however, is the claim of legal verifiability. The ECJ has specified the requirements for classifying countries of origin as safe. According to the ruling, EU member states must justify this well and disclose the information on which they have based their assessment. If someone comes from a country that is considered safe and applies for asylum in the EU, an accelerated asylum procedure can be applied. According to the ECJ ruling, this must be subject to judicial review – as must the basis for the classification as a safe country of origin.
