New EU rules on the “safe third country” concept are intended to allow member states to reject some asylum applications at the preliminary assessment stage. This will apply to people who could have applied for—and potentially obtained—asylum in a non-EU country deemed safe by member states. The aim of the changes is to streamline asylum procedures and reduce migration pressure within the Union.
“The definition of safe third countries is a solution that successfully entered the European Parliament’s legislative process on the basis of a report prepared by MEP Lena Düpont of the European People’s Party,” Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, a Member of the European Parliament from Poland’s Confederation party, told Newseria.
In December 2025, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached an agreement on how the safe third country concept should be applied, concluding EU-level legislative negotiations. The adopted framework clarifies existing rules and strengthens the ability to deem an application for international protection inadmissible if the applicant could have obtained effective protection outside the EU in a country meeting safety criteria. As a result, some applications may be rejected at an early stage, without the need to conduct a full asylum procedure on EU territory.
EU member states will be able to apply the safe third country concept when one of three conditions is met: the person transited through a third country en route to the EU where they could have sought protection; the person has ties to that country; or there is an agreement or arrangement with a safe third country concerning the readmission of asylum seekers.
“We should expect far more—the EU’s external borders should be closed to mass migration altogether. Still, this report is a step in the right direction, because it will enable EU member states to halt mass migration in third countries and limit the number of asylum applications accepted,” Zajączkowska-Hernik emphasizes.
One element of the new rules is also to formalize the practice of concluding migration agreements with non-EU countries.
“There are EU countries that are already seeking to sign international agreements with non-EU states—for example, Italy with Albania. This report is meant to legitimize that process and anchor it more firmly in international law,” the Polish MEP adds.
The burden on the EU asylum system remains high. According to European Parliament data, over 1 million asylum applications were filed in EU countries in 2024, with the largest shares in Germany (25%), Spain (18%), and Italy (16.6%).
“The greatest negotiating leverage lies with countries under the strongest migration pressure—Germany, France, and Southern European states. Looking at Eurostat figures, Poland is not considered a country under heavy migration pressure. However, if negotiations arise over issues such as allowing migrants to pass through, Poland should also be actively involved at every possible level. That is why we have a dedicated department within the Ministry of the Interior—to manage and oversee this policy. I therefore expect active engagement from the Polish government,” Zajączkowska-Hernik says.
The adopted solutions are criticized by Robert Biedroń, an MEP from The New Left.
“Above all, this is a betrayal of the weakest—people we should be protecting, often fleeing regimes and dictatorships. Not long ago we were awarding prizes to journalists persecuted by regimes such as Belarus or Georgia, and today we are closing the path to freedom for those same journalists if they were forced to flee,” he argues.
Biedroń considers it particularly problematic that the rules leave broad discretion to member states in determining which countries are deemed safe.
“Unfortunately, deciding which country is safe will be left to member states, and that is dangerous. We have countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic that are openly anti-European and often pro-Russian, supportive of regimes such as Belarus or Russia. These countries will be free to draw up their own lists,” Biedroń says. “Sooner or later, I am sure that Orbán will put Russia on such a list of safe countries. Are we supposed to tolerate that?”
In his view, in extreme cases the safe third country mechanism could lead to the return of people exposed to political repression or to restrictions on freedom of expression.
“It is a major mistake by the European People’s Party, which today includes Poland’s Civic Coalition and the Polish People’s Party, to support a solution that effectively serves up human rights defenders, free journalists, writers and authors—people who often want to criticize dictatorships and regimes—on a silver platter,” Biedroń assesses.
Supporters of the reform counter that the safe third country concept applies to people claiming refugee status and remains firmly grounded in international law.
“International law is clear: a war refugee has the right to flee their country and find shelter in the nearest safe state. Europe should not be the destination for refugees from such distant countries or regions. It surprises me that the European Union has not adhered to this principle. I hope the safe third country solution will be a step forward, anchoring policy more firmly in existing international law,” Zajączkowska-Hernik concludes.
