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

106 The expansion of the concept of “safe third country” nal protection alternative”, another controversial concept developed in the CEAS without a basis in the Geneva Convention. 44 The internal protection alternative serves as a filter in substantive refugee status determination, according to which an asylum seeker is refused protection on the ground that they would have no fear of persecution in a part of the territory of the country of origin. Through an uneasy analogy, discussions in Council propose an optional provision which would enable Member States to designate only part of the territory of a country as safe for the purposes of shifting responsibility thereto by dismissing asylum applications as in- admissible. Undue as it may be, the parallel between “internal protection alternative” and “safe third country” is also poorly drawn. As regards the requisite guarantees for an applicant to be transferred to only a part of the territory of a third country, the Presidency proposal has incorporated only some of the requirements set out by Article 8 of the recast Qualification Directive. It mentions that an applicant must be able “safely and legally travel to that part of the country”, 45 but omits the ref- erence to the possibility for them to “gain admittance” there. The latter require- ment has been codified in the Directive to reflect the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 46 The potential effects of these proposals are palpable. Expanding the “safe third country” concept to transfer responsibility to countries where human rights are only guaranteed in specific areas exacerbates disregard for the Geneva Conven- tion even further, while again undermining broader EU efforts to promote compli- ance with international law in its external policies. V. Concluding remarks The proposed expansion of “safe third country” vividly illustrates the risk of hold- ing legal standards hostage to short-term political priorities in the CEAS. It will be recalled that the reinvigoration of debates on the definition of the concept are not distinct from the deadlock on Dublin. Plans for deflection of responsibility for refugees externally occur at a time when EU leaders struggle to find common 44. Article 8(1) Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (hereafter “recast Qualification Directive”) [2011] L337/9. 45. Council of the European Union, Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation (first reading), 14098/17 15 November 2017, 11. 46. European Court of Human Rights, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands , Application No 1948/04, 11 January 2007; Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom , Application Nos 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 November 2011.