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

Minos Mouzourakis 99 Against the backdrop of deep divisions between Member States vis-à-vis the bal- ancing of responsibility for managing inflows of refugees and migrants within the EU, leading to a halt of formal negotiations on the Dublin IV Regulation proposal, 12 parallel discussions are unfolding within the EU institutions relating to deflection of responsibilities beyond the EU, and the definition of “safe third country”. These were instigated by the European Council earlier in 2017, following a call on legisla- tors to broaden the scope of the “safe third country” concept by aligning it “with the effective requirements arising from the Geneva Convention and EU primary law, while respecting the competences of the EU and the Member States under the Treaties.” 13 In the context of debates within the Council, some Member States have raised far-reaching proposals to lower currently applicable standards, going beyond already questionable suggestions submitted by the European Commission in its proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation. Current debates are symptomatic of the insistence of some European countries on undermining access to protection in the EU and form part of an overall strat- egy of containment of refugees in other regions. Largely building on the perceived success brought about by the EU-Turkey statement in reducing arrivals to Greece through Turkey, 14 Member States view the “safe third country” concept as key to shielding their asylum systems from migratory pressure by equipping their admin- istrations with powers to expediently deflect responsibility to third countries. This article discusses relevant legal issues and protection concerns stemming from the proposed expansion of the “safe third country” concept in the Council, par- ticularly as regards (1) its mandatory application, (2) the lowering of safety and connection criteria, and (3) uneasy analogies drawn with the concept of “internal protection alternative”. ΙΙ. Mandatory or optional ground for inadmissibility? Contrary to the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, where “safe third country” remains optional for Member States, the proposal for an Asylum Procedures Reg- ulation introduces “safe third country” as a mandatory ground for inadmissibili- 12. ECRE, ‘CEAS reform process: State of play of negotiation on Dublin IV Regulation and the Reception Conditions Directive’, 1 December 2017, available at: https://www. ecre.org/ceas-reform-process-state-of-play-of-negotiation-on-dublin-iv-regulation- and-the-reception-conditions-directive/. 13. European Council, Conclusions – 22 and 23 June 2017 , EUCO 8/17, para 23. 14. European Commission, Commission contribution to the EU Leaders’ thematic debate on a way forward on the external and internal dimension of migration policy , COM(2017) 820, 7 December 2017, 3, reiterating the views expressed in numerous Communications in 2016 and 2017.