• Home /
• Outsourcing Borders: Monitoring EU externalisation policy /
• Bulletin 10 /
• Deportation and readmission

Deportation and readmission

EU deportation proposals: the member states sink to new depths /// Danish presidency presents its compromise texts on safe third country and safe countries of origin legislation /// Member state comments on “safe third country” proposal /// Member state comments on the “safe country of origin” proposal /// Danish presidency looks to the “way forward” on safe countries list ///

EU deportation proposals: the member states sink to new depths

A new compromise text for the upcoming deportation Regulation was recently circulated by the Danish presidency of the Council of the EU. Alongside two other legal proposals currently under discussion, the deportation Regulation forms the legal basis for the EU’s plan to increase deportations, in particular by forging new ‘Euro-Rwanda’ deportation schemes. The latest text makes even more cuts to safeguards and protections.

The summary below demonstrates the degree to which the Council is willing to reduce, limit or eliminate safeguards for people subject to deportation orders. Changes in the latest proposed version of the text:

• remove administrative barriers to deportation at multiple stages of the process;
• dilute protections, human rights safeguards and legal remedies;
• allow people to be deported with far less information on their rights and the process;
• place asylum seekers at greater risk of detention, and allow for detention in prisons with no access to open air, if considered necessary;
• enact measures designed to keep people out of Europe for good;
• dilute protections for children and their families, including by removing references to the best interests of the child, a principle of international law; and
• transfer procedural duties and obligations from member states onto deportees.

The presidency’s compromise text reflects a desire to remove as many human rights barriers and administrative hurdles to deportation as possible. A lot of the changes can be seen simply as ‘tuning up’ the language of the text to remove ambiguities, but there are also significant differences in the compromise document from the previous version of the proposal.

A full analysis of the compromise text can be found on the Statewatch website.

Danish presidency presents its compromise texts on safe third country and safe countries of origin legislation

After months of discussion with delegations, the Danish presidency presented in September compromise texts on proposals to establish an EU list of “safe countries of origin” to which people can be deported (the ‘SCO proposal’), and to revise the principle of the “safe third country” (STC proposal).

These compromise texts complement the revised deportation Regulation draft (above). Together, the three proposals form the legal pillars of the EU’s project to increase deportations and further outsource migration control to non-EU countries. The texts reflect a clear desire on the part of most member states to remove barriers to faster deportations.

A full analysis of the two compromise texts can be read on the Statewatch website.

Alongside the two compromise texts, Statewatch has obtained a compilation of comments from delegations on both the STC proposal and SCO proposal (pdfs). Both documents are dated 30 June 2025. Statewatch also obtained a letter (pdf) from the new Danish presidency on “outstanding issues and way forward” for the SCO Proposal, dated 4 July 2025.

Member state comments on “safe third country” proposal

Comments (pdf) are recorded by Austria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Spain. They broadly match a summary of the discussions in a German diplomatic cable obtained by Statewatch.

Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands emerge as the strongest voices calling for legal and administrative barriers to increased deportations be removed, particularly regarding the “connection criteria” and suspensive effect of appeals. Austria made clear its desire for “as little formalities as possible to conclude an arrangement with third Countries”.

France, on the other hand, maintained its opposition to deleting the connection criteria and removing the suspensive effect of appeals. The comments also note that the French constitution requires asylum applications filed in France be examined properly, making ‘accelerated’ STC procedures irrelevant on French territory. French delegates appear concerned that, if a non-harmonised system were implemented, there may be more secondary movement to France from member states with more restrictive procedures.

Other notable comments include:

• Ireland, while in favour of keeping the connection criteria, would nevertheless be willing to delete it if other member states wish to.
• The Netherlands prefers member states retaining flexibility on how to apply the suspensive effect concept.
• Portugal requested clarity on what mechanisms should be in place to prevent STCs from violating non-refoulement.
• Spain appeared broadly sceptical of the STC proposal overall and has a ‘scrutiny reservation’, particularly in light of ongoing deportation Regulation negotiations.
• Cyprus warned that, while it is “in favour of taking into account the best interests of the child” it is concerned that “young undocumented persons” might claim to be underage and therefore be protected from deportation under existing legislation. Cyprus proposed more ‘rigorous’ age assessment requirements, though the issue is largely dispensed with in the new compromise texts, which would see unaccompanied minors in theory eligible for deportation under STC schemes.
• Cyprus and Greece appear to favour STC agreements at the EU level, rather than multiple bilateral agreements, citing a desire for simplicity and the onerous negotiations required of bilateral deals. Greece in particular called for the EU to be “ambitious” when it comes to STC schemes.
• Greece is anxious that it be consulted on any deals other member states make with a country on its border.
• Romania and the Slovak Republic appear broadly content with the proposals.

Member state comments on the “safe country of origin” proposal

Comments (partially redacted, pdf) on this proposal were more technical than on the STC counterpart. They largely address procedural issues around the application of various elements, in particular:

• whether EU candidate countries should automatically be considered ‘safe’;
• how accelerated asylum procedures are implemented;
• sources of information for designating countries ‘safe’;
• how geographic or demographic exceptions should be made in cases where conflict, persecution or other dangers exist in parts of a ‘safe’ country; and
• the process for removing countries from ‘safe’ lists if conditions deteriorate and how asylum procedures would change in that case.

Notably, the Netherlands appeared to take significant issue with the Commission’s designation of various countries as safe, including several candidate countries as well as Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco, Bangladesh, Turkey and Tunisia.

It appears that, at this stage, the wording of the SCO proposal left many ambiguities in the eyes of delegates. In one notable example, Portugal asked why the Commission and Presidency “insist on making a distinction between civilians and people”.

Danish presidency looks to the “way forward” on safe countries list

In a letter to member state delegations sent on 4 July (pdf), the new Danish presidency appeared optimistic about the safe countries of origin proposal. The letter notes “the will of Member States to finally deliver on an EU list of safe countries of origin and to reach a Council position”. The presidency pledged to continue pushing for progress, but cautioned several “substantial issues” remained.

Most notable of these issues was whether SCO provisions in the Asylum Procedure Regulation and any potential national or EU level safe country lists should be tied, with the former potentially being too restrictive for the operation of the latter.

The concern is that “if interpreted too narrowly, the operational utility of the safe country of origin concept as an efficient tool to swiftly examine specific types of asylum applications could be thwarted”. In other words, existing rules around how to designate a country ‘safe’ may in practice restrict the EU’s ambitions to establish accelerated asylum procedures with as many countries as possible.

The presidency also reminded delegations that the common EU list should not be considered “exhaustive”. Rather it should be better understood as a list of the most common countries of origin, in theory offering the most efficient package to the EU overall, while leaving room for member state lists to include other countries.

The Presidency also highlights the issues of EU candidate countries, notification mechanisms and exceptions from safe lists as requiring more consideration.