ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ: ΕΞΕΛΙΞΕΙΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΔΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΥΓΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ

100 The expansion of the concept of “safe third country” ty. 15 This is done with the stated aim of achieving a higher level of harmonisation across Europe. Yet, an obligatory and systematic use of the concept raises objec- tions at four main levels. Firstly, the Commission proposal consolidates a highly questionable practice with no clear basis in international refugee and human rights law. Whereas the 1951 Geneva Convention does not provide refugees with an unfettered right to choose their country of asylum, it also imposes no obligation on them to apply in the first country reached after fleeing their country of origin. According to the United Na- tions High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the primary responsibility for pro- tection rests with the state where asylum is sought, meaning that “regard should be had to the concept that asylum should not be refused solely on the ground that it could be sought from another State.” 16 By requiring asylum authorities to dis- miss a claim as inadmissible on the basis that the applicant could have sought pro- tection elsewhere, EU law would in fact impose an additional layer of require- ments for obtaining international protection, by introducing a duty on prospective refugees to seek protection in other countries prior to arriving in Europe. Secondly, a mandatory application of the concept would oblige the vast major- ity of European countries, where “safe third country” is rarely if ever invoked by administrations, to make use of it in their daily practice. With the exception of Greece and Hungary, which have recently applied the concept systematically, this would entail substantial administrative changes and resources for asylum authori- ties which refrain from generally deflecting protection responsibilities to third countries. 17 Thirdly, mandatory admissibility checks with a view to transferring asylum seekers to third countries sharply contrast with commitments for greater responsibility- sharing for refugees at the global level. The New York Declaration of 19 September 2016, also signed by EU countries, commits to “a more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting the world’s refugees, while taking account of existing contributions and the differing capacities and resourc- es among States.” 18 Under the pretext of bringing the CEAS in line with the “ef- fective requirements” of the Geneva Convention, a systematic application of the “safe third country” concept would seriously undermine these efforts and bear 15. Articles 36(1)(b) and 45(2) Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation. 16. UNHCR, Executive Committee (EXCOM) Conclusion No 15 (XXX) – 1979 “Refugees without an Asylum Country”, available at: https://www.unhcr.org/excom/exconc/3ae68c960/ refugees-asylum-country.html. 17. AIDA, Admissibility, responsibility and safety in European asylum procedures, September 2016, 18. 18. United Nations General Assembly, New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants, A/ RES/71/1, 19 September 2016, para 68.