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

104 The expansion of the concept of “safe third country” term of “protection in accordance with the substantive standards of the Geneva Convention” and to use “sufficient protection” as the safety threshold for the des- ignation of safe third countries. Another element of concern in the Council discussions concerns the person- al scope of the remaining safety criteria for the use of the “safe third country” concept. According to the Presidency proposal, the guarantees against perse- cution, serious harm and refoulement need only be secured in respect of “non- nationals”. 32 Although the “safe third country” concept would always concern the treatment of an asylum seeker in a third country, this formulation has far-reaching legal and political implications for the EU’s efforts to promote respect for human rights in its external affairs policies, as discussed above. Such a construction of the concept would, rather paradoxically and worryingly, deem it acceptable for Member States to deflect responsibility to a country which may offer sufficient protection to aliens while persecuting or ill-treating its own citizens. Moreover, the Presidency proposal also permits Member States to designate a third country as safe subject to “exceptions for clearly identifiable categories of persons”. 33 This fragmentation of the “safe third country” concept borrows ques- tionable elements from certain countries’ practice with regard to the notion of “safe country of origin” concerning the presumption of manifest unfoundedness of claims by nationals of specific third countries. For states such as the United Kingdom, a country may be designated as a “safe country of origin” only for male asylum seekers, for instance. 34 Further questions relating to the territorial scope of the safety criteria are dis- cussed further below. Connection criteria Also in relation to the requirement of a connection between an individual asylum seeker and a third country, the proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation aims to considerably reduce standards. While under the current Directive the rules on such a connection are to be defined by national law, 35 the Commission proposal and essential treatment of illnesses”; (iii) reduced education to “elementary educa- tion”; (iv) amended legal residence to “legal stay”; and (v) reduced reception facilities to “access to means of subsistence to maintain a dignified standard of living”. Under the Presidency proposal, “sufficient protection” will also encompass “protection in ac- cordance with the Geneva Convention”. 32. Ibid , 9. 33. Ibid , 10. 34. AIDA, Country Report United Kingdom, 2016 Update, February 2017, available at: http:// www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_uk_2016update. pdf, 50. 35. Article 38(2)(a) recast Asylum Procedures Directive.