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

Minos Mouzourakis 107 ground on how to share responsibility for refugees internally. Pushing protection questions beyond EU borders appears as an attractive solution against that back- ground. Yet, narrowly conceived objectives to prevent refugees from accessing European soil come at a high political and legal cost. Undermining the commitment of the CEAS to the international refugee law framework has serious ramifications for the respect of human rights and the defensibility of the “safe third country” before national and European courts. Experience from countries such as Hungary and Greece already demonstrates that a systematic use of the concept, along with the procedural arrangements set up for its expedient implementation, come with seri- ous human rights violations. 47 At the same time, longer-term political objectives in the EU’s dealings with third countries, such as the promotion of human rights, conflict prevention and sus- tainable development, are inevitably destabilised by directing cooperation chan- nels towards migration control. Beyond legal questions, the efficiency of such a policy remains dubious. Even if a prospective Asylum Procedures Regulation ena- bles states to deflect responsibility for asylum seekers on the mere basis of transit through countries – or parts thereof – where a modest level of rights are afforded, there might be little reason for these countries to cooperate. In that light, the “myth” of deflection may become too onerous to implement in practice. 47. On Hungary, see European Court of Human Rights, Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary , Applica- tion No 47287/15, 14 March 2017. On Greece, a case is currently pending before the Court: European Court of Human Rights, J.B. v. Greece , Application No 54796/16, Com- municated on 18 May 2017.