The safe countries of origin lottery

The notion of safe countries of origin plays a key role in migration policy, both at the European level and in the context of Germany’s coalition negotiations. At the same time it remains a contentious concept. Now, changes are on the horizon – not least as a result of the implementation of the European Asylum Pact. But what does all this actually mean in practice? An online discussion hosted by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung on 18 March 2025 – part of a new series of events entitled “Understanding Migration” – explored these developments in more detail.

“The German government is clearly aware of the serious issues related to the human rights situation in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia,” stated then Interior Minister Thomas De Maizière during a parliamentary debate in 2017 – only to justify shortly afterwards why these three countries should nevertheless be considered safe countries of origin. The bill was approved by the Bundestag but was later blocked by the Bundesrat. A mere two years later, however, the new Interior Minister Horst Seehofer reintroduced the very same bill. The idea of declaring more states as safe countries of origin – and thus making it easier to deport people there – is a recurring theme in asylum policy debates. And now, it is back on the table in the coalition negotiations.
 

Safe countries of origin?

Even then, there were reservations about classifying the Maghreb states as safe countries of origin, given the fact that, in Morocco and Tunisia, activists and members of the LGBTI community face persecution, and in Algeria, crimes such as the rape of minors often go unpunished. The concept of safe countries of origin actually implies that all individuals within a state must be free from persecution – a principle which was reaffirmed last year by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 

The concept also plays an important role in the new external border procedures, which are at the heart of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) adopted in 2024. These procedures are designed to apply to asylum seekers from countries with a low recognition rate (less than 20 percent) across Europe. This rate reflects the proportion of asylum seekers from a particular country of origin who are granted protection on completion of their asylum process. While the CEAS regulations have yet to be implemented into German law, a bill put forward in November proposes – in line with European law – extending the new rules not only to refugees from countries with low recognition rates but also to those from safe countries of origin. Moreover, the Federal Interior Ministry under the new German government is planning, according to the bill, to expand the list of countries and allow such classifications without the need for Bundesrat approval.
 

Lack of transparency

Dr Konstantina Kromlidou, a lawyer with many years of experience as a decision-maker at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), regularly informed asylum seekers about their rights and obligations. In this role, she repeatedly encountered misunderstandings and concerns regarding the classification of safe countries of origin. “Given the far-reaching legal consequences of this concept, it is crucial that the procedure remains transparent,” she noted. The issue here is that, while the constitutional and European legal criteria for classification are appropriate and fair, decisions are often based on a limited range of sources. They are frequently restricted to government reports, for instance, without considering input from organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. This makes it more difficult for those affected to convincingly demonstrate individual persecution.
 

Complex procedure

Muzaffer Öztürkyilmaz from the Refugee Council (Flüchtlingsrat) of Lower Saxony is also aware that many of those affected struggle with the lack of transparency. Öztürkyilmaz points out that the persecution of queer people, for instance, rarely comes to the attention of state authorities. In his experience, the concept of safe countries of origin has led to biased assessments of individual cases by the authorities, with asylum seekers not being taken seriously. “Our initial assumption is that there is no persecution, even if there is something in your interview,” he recalls from conversations with those responsible.

What is more, the aim of simplifying and thus speeding up asylum procedures has not been achieved either: classifying countries with low recognition rates as safe countries of origin with low recognition rates has not led to shorter asylum procedures as intended – on the contrary, it has likely caused delays. “For asylum seekers from Ghana, it currently takes the courts around 24 months to come to a decision,” reported Öztürkyilmaz.
 

A European patchwork

In addition to this, national legal definitions of what constitutes a safe country or origin differ markedly between EU member states. In Italy, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have long been considered safe. In Germany, Moldova was classified as a safe country of origin in 2023 – only for the ECJ to rule the Czech Republic’s attempt to apply the same designation a breach of EU law later that year. For those affected, such decisions can sometimes seem arbitrary. Muzaffer Öztürkyilmaz likens the process to a lottery, pointing out that even the recognition rates differ enormously. The idea of a standardised EU-wide list of safe countries has so far been rejected due to legal concerns.

But it is not just that attempts at European-level dialogue so far have failed – a crucial actor has also been excluded: the countries of origin themselves. Anna Terrón, former Spanish Secretary of State for Immigration and Emigration and an expert on EU migration policy, finds this concerning. “We have so many different instruments when it comes to safe countries and border regulations. But we should also focus more on how we can really involve the countries and regions in any dialogue, ensuring the safety and rights of those affected,” she explains. “There should be a stronger emphasis on whether asylum seekers are truly accepted in their countries of origin or in the EU – so far, it is unclear how this will change once the CEAS is implemented.”

How the future German government will address this issue remains to be seen. The speakers on the podium certainly have one recommendation: fewer debates about deportation, more resilience in dealing with migration.