The Aleb judgment on ‘safe third countries’ in asylum law: the CJEU’s answer to EU legislative amendments?

 

 

Tamta Gventsadze, PhD candidate in law, UNITUS

Photo credit: Mstyslav Chernov, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Introduction

On February 5, 2026, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Case C-718/24, Aleb concerning the interpretation of Articles 33(2)(c), 38 and 46 of Directive 2013/32 in the context of the ‘safe third country’ concept and the right to an effective remedy, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

This analysis examines the Aleb judgment in light of the ‘safe third country’ concept under Directive 2013/32 (Asylum Procedures Directive, APD) and its replacement by Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 (Asylum Procedures Regulation, APR) from 12 June this year. After mapping the factual background and the Court’s clarification of the cumulative safeguards governing the presumption of safety, it then considers the impact of the 2026 amendments and assesses their implications for judicial control and fundamental rights protection.

I. Facts of the Case

The applicant, NP, is a Syrian national and an unaccompanied minor who lodged an application for international protection in Bulgaria on 2 November 2023. During the interview conducted on 1 December 2023, he stated that he had lived in Aleppo (Syria) and had left two to three months earlier with his brothers because of the war. Before “illegally entering the Bulgarian territory” (para. 19), NP stayed in Türkiye for approximately one month, where his brothers remained with three of his sisters who already lived there.

By decision of 18 June 2024, the Chairperson of the Bulgarian National Refugee Agency rejected the application, refusing to grant him both refugee and humanitarian status. The authority accepted that Syria was affected by internal armed conflict and indiscriminate violence and acknowledged that the applicant was exposed to a real threat to his life or person. Nevertheless, it refused to grant protection on the ground that Türkiye constituted a ‘safe third country’ in which the applicant could seek protection. The decision relied, inter alia, on the fact that the applicant had already lived in Türkiye for about a month without suffering harm, had close family members there, and that Syrian nationals in Türkiye benefited from temporary protection and protection against forced return; finally, “their basic needs [were] satisfied” (para. 20).

The referring court expressed doubts as to the compatibility of this approach with Directive 2013/32, especially considering the absence of both a defined methodology for applying the ‘safe third country’ concept and the lack of explicit procedural guarantees under Bulgarian law allowing the applicant to challenge the existence of a sufficient connection with Türkiye (paras 24-26).

II. The Presumption of Safety under Article 38 of the Directive

The judgment deals with the legal nature and limits of the presumption underlying the ‘safe third country’ concept. The Court begins by recalling that the application of Article 33(2)(c) of the APD (ie, providing that asylum applications are inadmissible where the ‘safe third country’ principle is applied) is conditional upon strict compliance with the requirements of Article 38 thereof (ie the definition of ‘safe third country’ and the conditions related to it). In para. 48 of the judgment, it is expressly stated that the conditions laid down in Article 38 are cumulative, with the result that the inadmissibility ground cannot be applied where any one of those conditions is not satisfied.

This formulation makes clear that the presumption of safety is neither automatic nor self-standing, it is legally constructed and constrained by a series of substantive and procedural safeguards (para. 46). More precisely, Article 38(2) requires Member States to regulate the safe third country concept through national law and that the national rules ensure: (i) there is a sufficient connection between the applicant and the third country so that return there is reasonable; (ii) must define a methodology for applying the concept, which includes either a case-by-case safety assessment or the designation of generally safe countries; (iii) must guarantee an individual examination and allow the applicant to challenge both the safety of the third country in their specific circumstances and the existence of the required connection.

Therefore, the key requirement in the safe third country designation is the existence of a “connection” between the applicant and the third country. The Court emphasizes that Article 38(2)(a) obliges Member States to define in national law criteria enabling authorities to determine whether such a connection exists and whether return to that country is reasonable (paras 51–52). Since the Directive does not define “connection,” Member States retain discretion to specify the criteria, but within EU limits.

Importantly, the Court further reiterates its prior case law that mere transit through a third country cannot, on its own, justify the conclusion that return there is reasonable (para. 54). This statement substantially narrows the presumption. It prevents Member States from relying on minimal factual links and requires a qualitative assessment of the relationship between the applicant and the third country, considering factors such as duration and circumstances of stay and family ties. It is evident that the presumption cannot be based merely on the “transit” criterion. Even where national law relies on the notion of “stay,” national courts must assess, in light of all circumstances, whether that stay genuinely establishes a sufficient connection (para. 55).

The Court also addresses national lists of safe third countries. Member States may, in principle, designate safe third countries by general act. However, such designation does not dispense with the obligation to conduct an individual assessment. National law must provide a methodology for a case-by-case evaluation of both the country’s safety for the applicant and the existence of a sufficient connection (para. 65). The presumption must remain rebuttable, and the applicant must be able to challenge the existence of that connection.

The judgment firmly situates the safe third country concept within the framework of effective judicial protection. Article 38(2)(c) must be read in conjunction with the ‘effective remedy’ rights in both Article 46 of the Directive and Article 47 of the Charter (paras 69-74). Even if national law does not explicitly confer such power, a court hearing an appeal must verify whether a sufficient connection exists.

Accordingly, the Court recalls that Article 46(1) of the Directive guarantees a right to an effective remedy in asylum cases and that Article 46(3) requires a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and law in asylum appeals. This standard applies even in inadmissibility cases and does not necessarily require a substantive assessment of protection needs, but it does require full judicial scrutiny of admissibility conditions. Furthermore, Article 47 of the Charter enshrines the principle of effective judicial protection and is directly applicable, thereby requiring national courts to conduct comprehensive review consistent with EU fundamental rights standards.

Therefore, when reviewing a decision declaring an application inadmissible on ‘safe third country’ grounds, national courts must conduct a full and up-to-date examination of whether the third country is safe for the applicant and whether all cumulative conditions, including the connection requirement, are fulfilled (para. 75). The Court thus subjects the presumption of safety to meaningful judicial scrutiny grounded in Article 47 of the Charter.

Finally, the Court confirms that an application may be declared inadmissible on ‘safe third country’ grounds even where the applicant faces a real risk of serious harm in the country of origin (ie, as distinct from the ‘safe third country’). This confirms that the ‘safe third country’ concept functions as a jurisdiction-allocating mechanism rather than as a substantive denial of risk in the country of origin. Precisely because it allows displacement of protection despite such risk, strict compliance with Article 38 safeguards is imperative.

III. Relevant changes of legislative framework

It is further necessary to underline that while the Court has provided meaningful clarifications regarding safe third country concept and judicial protection in light of corresponding provisions under Directive 2013/32 in a few months’ time this instrument will be replaced by another secondary EU legislation in the form of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU (already discussed in great detail here).

Upon a comparative assessment of these two contrasting instruments, several illustrative differences emerge between the provisions concerning safety presumptions, and those of appeals.

Article 33 of the APD addresses inadmissible applications, framing them as an exception to the obligation to examine the substance of an application, meaning that Member States are not required to assess the merits of qualification for international protection where one of the exhaustively listed grounds for inadmissibility applies. The list is limited: Art. 33(2) includes protection granted by another Member State, first country of asylum, ‘safe third country’, subsequent applications without any new elements, and applications lodged by dependents who had consented to be included in another application.

Article 38 of the APR restructures this framework, by separating the decision on admissibility from the decision on the merits. Article 39(3) explicitly governs rejection as unfounded following substantive examination pursuant to the ‘Qualifications’ Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. This structural clarification seems to strengthen the distinction between inadmissibility and unfoundedness, which had already been emphasized by the Court.

In addition, relevant to the current analysis, a notable development concerns the first country of asylum and ‘safe third country’ grounds of inadmissibility. In the APD, Article 33(2)(b) and (c) refer to Articles 35 and 38 without expressly conditioning inadmissibility on the likelihood of admission or readmission. The Regulation introduces an explicit safeguard, with Article 38(1)(a) and (b) essentially stating that inadmissibility may apply unless it is clear that the applicant will not be admitted or readmitted to the third country. Therefore, changes regarding admissibility grounds combine expansion with procedural tightening and partial codification of judicial safeguards.

To further detail the elements regarding the concept of ‘safe third country’, it seems clear that the evolution of the rules on this principle from Article 38 of the APD to Article 59 of the 2024 Regulation, especially as amended in 2026, reflects an apparent shift in structure and scope, even if several aspects remain unchanged.

First off, at the level of safety criteria, both instruments require absence of threats to life or liberty on Convention grounds, absence of serious harm, respect for non-refoulement, and protection against removal contrary to international law. The Regulation clarifies the content of “effective protection” through reference to Article 57 and to Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. As defined by Article 57, effective protection can be attained in a country that has ratified and respects the Geneva Convention on Refugee Status, within any permitted reservations or limitations. However, where a geographical limitation applies, or where the Convention has not been ratified, protection must be assessed against minimum criteria of permission to remain on the territory, access to sufficient means of subsistence to ensure an adequate standard of living, access to healthcare and essential treatment, access to education under general national conditions, and the availability of protection until a durable solution is found. Interestingly, these minimum criteria resemble those of subsidiary protection guarantees, but the context refers to international protection.

Secondly, additional significant changes concern Union and national designation mechanisms introduced by the Regulation. Article 59(2) and (3) of the Regulation, which have no previous equivalent in the Directive, allow partial designation for specific territorial parts or identifiable categories of persons and require reliance on a broad range of sources. Importantly, Art. 59(5)(b) explicitly maintained, that the ‘safe third country’ concept may only be applied where “there is a connection between the applicant and the third country in question on the basis of which it would be reasonable for him or her to go to that country” (the same standard of ‘reasonable’ connection as employed by the Court in Aleb).

However, the 2026 amendments substantially reshape the connection criterion, by removing it as a mandatory condition and introducing two additional bases. The concept may now apply where the applicant transited through the third country (explicitly opposing to what the Court prohibits in Aleb). It may also apply where an agreement or arrangement exists requiring the third country to examine protection claims. As already wittily named elsewhere, this ‘Rwanda clause’ permits transfer without prior connection or transit. Moreover, the removal of automatic suspensive effect in safe third country appeals in the 2026 amendments seem to further intensify a restrictive shift, although there is still a possibility for requesting a judicial suspension.

The most problematic aspect seems this possibility of transferring an individual to a state where they might have never even been to, but the secondary law would permit it solely due to the existence of an agreement (often in non-legally binding form of MoUs) between a EU Member State or the Union and possibly any third country. It is true that an applicant will maintain a possibility to appeal this decision, however, they might have to first ask for a suspensive effective of the appeal, which further complicates an already arduous procedure. In theory, a person might end up being transferred to such a supposedly ‘safe’ third country before a decision is made upon their request to remain, which could create a rather unclear legal consequence; would a person potentially have to be brought back, shall their appeal succeed? It is true that this particular scenario might be extremely rare in practice, but does this rarity allow for its legality?

Nevertheless, despite this expansion in scope, the APR maintains several core safeguards, explicitly stating that admission or readmission must be ensured and that individual assessment remains required (which could become more restricted in practice). Special guarantees also apply to unaccompanied minors, including best interests and prior assurances of protection; and the ‘Rwanda’ clause cannot apply to unaccompanied minors at all.

As confirmed by the Alace judgment, designations of ‘safe countries of origin’ must remain subject to judicial review under Article 47 of the Charter. The Court held that national courts must be able to examine compliance with material designation criteria and to rely on independent sources of information. This reasoning applies by analogy to ‘safe third country’ designations and considering that the Charter has the same legal value as primary EU law, legislative attempts to narrow judicial review cannot override it.

In this context, the Aleb judgment constitutes an additional message. It reaffirms that application of the ‘safe third country’ concept is subject to cumulative conditions and full judicial scrutiny. Even as the legislature broadens the concept and limits suspensive effect, the Court insists on effective judicial protection and strict assessment of safety criteria.

IV. Concluding Assessment

The Aleb judgment does not abolish the presumption of safety inherent in Article 38 of the Directive. However, it subjects the presumption to cumulative substantive conditions, mandatory individualized assessment, and full judicial review.

In more detail, the ECJ allows that the determining authority may apply the concept of ‘safe third country’ on the basis of information from publicly available sources and rely on a national list of safe third countries, if such exists, but this is only provided that national law also defines the methodology applicable for assessing, on a case-by-case basis, according to the particular circumstances of the applicant for international protection, whether the third country concerned satisfies the conditions for being regarded as safe for that applicant and the possibility for that applicant to challenge the existence of a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a).

Moreover, the Court’s insistence, particularly in paragraphs 48, 54 and 65 of the judgment, on the cumulative nature of the safeguards, the insufficiency of mere transit, and the necessity of a defined methodology, significantly limits the discretionary space of national authorities. The ECJ reinforces the procedural containment of the ‘safe third country’ mechanism, by linking these cumulative requirements to Article 46 of the Directive and Article 47 of the Charter, and by requiring national courts to verify the existence of a connection even where national law is silent in this regard.

Therefore, the Court ties the existence of the ‘safe third country’ presumption to two co-existing elements: clearly defined methodology underlining individual assessment (which includes the existence of “reasonable” connection between the applicant and the safe third country) and a possibility for judicial review of the connection requirement. It seems evident from this judgment, that the safety presumption, be it national or supranational level, would otherwise be invalid. In a way, Aleb strengthens the doctrinal link between inadmissibility decisions and effective judicial protection. The presumption of safety is permitted, per se, but only as a structured, reviewable and rebuttable legal construction embedded within the broader guarantees of EU fundamental rights law.

The combined effect of Alace and Aleb indicates that the Court of Justice does not seem to be prepared for relaxing the standards governing the designation and review of ‘safe third countries’. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether and how the Court will respond to the legislative changes, considering that they aim to abolish the mandatory connection element and restrict safeguards when challenging it.

The Future of Temporary Protection in Türkiye: Return of Syrians after the Fall of Assad

 

Dr. Ayşe Dicle Ergin, Assistant Professor, Bilkent University Faculty of Law

 

Photo credit: Henry Ridgwell, Voice of America news, via Wikimedia Commons

 

As of today, the vast majority of approximately 2.8 million Syrians in Türkiye, having fled the conflict and civil war, are under temporary protection. This figure does not include the 73,331 Syrians with residence permits. The regime applicable to the temporary protection beneficiaries is set out in the Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) and the Temporary Protection Regulation (TPR).

 

Following the fall of the Assad regime, there has been an expectation that Syrians will soon return to their home country. However, a realistic assessment of the current situation is essential to avoid fostering misguided expectations. This blogpost will examine the meaning and scope of temporary protection, the conditions for its termination, voluntary return, and the circumstances under which Syrians may be able to return.

 

Temporary Protection

 

Temporary protection is a regime that enables states facing a mass influx of refugees to provide emergency intervention without conducting individual refugee status determination procedures. It addresses protection gaps by ensuring the fundamental rights of individuals fleeing armed conflict and guarantees protection against refoulement. This regime was originally conceived as a return-oriented protection mechanism.

 

Under the temporary protection regime, both refugees covered by Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and individuals eligible for complementary protection within the broader context of forced migration are provided with legal protection. This regime aims to use the host country’s resources efficiently while avoiding the perception that beneficiaries will remain in the host country permanently. In this context, the general expectation and the most commonly preferred solution is the return of beneficiaries to their home countries.

 

The international protection regime is founded on specific principles and criteria established under international law, and it is accepted that these principles largely apply to temporary protection, with the principle of non-refoulement serving as a key criterion in this context. As outlined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, this principle prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees to territories where they would face a risk of persecution. While this provision specifically applies to refugees, the second paragraph of the article allows for two exceptions based on public order and public safety considerations.

 

However, with the growing influence of human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement has been interpreted more broadly over time. As reflected in key international legal instruments, this broader interpretation extends to ‘everyone’ without exception. The case law of regional human rights courts has significantly contributed to this expansive understanding, solidifying non-refoulement as a fundamental principle of human rights law and international customary law.

 

The ECtHR interprets the principle of non-refoulement within the framework of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and ill-treatment in an absolute manner. In this regard the ECtHR has adjudicated cases involving both generalized violence and national security concerns. These rulings affirm that the principle of non-refoulement constitutes a non-derogable obligation under the regional law of the Council of Europe, of which Türkiye is a member.

 

The principle of non-refoulement is a fundamental and binding principle of the international protection regime, ensuring that no one is returned to a territory where they would face a risk of persecution, torture, inhuman treatment, or punishment. Türkiye upholds this principle through legal guarantees enshrined in Article 17 of its Constitution, Articles 4 and 55 of the LFIP, and Article 6 of the TPR.

 

End of Temporary Protection

 

As reflected in its name, temporary protection is granted for a limited period; however, determining the exact duration is not always possible. In the 1990s, it was widely accepted that temporary protection should not extend beyond five years, whereas the current upper limit is generally set at three years. The EU Temporary Protection Directive (EU TPD) also stipulates a maximum protection period of three years, provided that the reasons for temporary protection persist (EU TPD Art. 4). However, following the Ukraine crisis, EU practice has shifted towards extending this duration despite ongoing legal debates.

 

In contrast, Turkish national legislation does not specify a maximum time limit for the temporary protection regime (TPR, Art. 10). Temporary protection may cease either individually or collectively. In cases of collective cessation, the President may terminate temporary protection upon the proposal of the Ministry of Interior (TPR, Art. 11). Following such a decision, the President also determines the durable solution for beneficiaries of temporary protection, which may include: full cessation to facilitate return to the country of origin, collective granting of status, individual assessment of applications for international protection, or the provision of a legal right to stay under the conditions outlined in the LFIP). According to the Temporary Protection Regulation, the primary expectation after cessation is the return of beneficiaries to their home countries (TPR, Art. 14). The TPR further mandates that authorities provide the necessary facilitation and assistance for those opting for voluntary repatriation (TPR, Art. 42). The grounds for individual termination of temporary protection include voluntarily leaving Türkiye, availing protection of a third country, being admitted to a third country for humanitarian reasons or resettlement, passing away, or acquiring a legal right to stay or Turkish citizenship as stipulated in the law (TPR, Art. 12).

 

Voluntary Repatriation and Return

 

Voluntary repatriation is a key concept in situations where the conditions that initially necessitated protection in the host country no longer exist in the country of origin. In the context of international protection, the international community, particularly the UNHCR, recognizes three durable solutions: voluntary repatriation, local integration, and resettlement. While the Global Compact on Refugees expands these solutions with the inclusion of ‘complementary pathways’, voluntary repatriation remains the most widely favoured durable solution by the states. This preference is reaffirmed not only in UNHCR Executive Committee conclusions but also promoted by the international community in the Global Compact on Refugees, which emphasizes facilitating the sustainability of returns.

 

The 1951 Convention does not explicitly address voluntary repatriation. However, international human rights law establishes the fundamental principle that no individual shall be deprived of the right to return to their own country (UDHR, Art. 13/2; ICCPR, Art. 12/4; CERD, Art. 5/d; ECHR, Protocol No. 4, Art. 3/2; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 12/2; American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 22/5). The key element of this process is its ‘voluntary’ nature - meaning the return must be based on the free will of the individual. Consequently, as highlighted by UNHCR, voluntary repatriation can only be considered a viable solution under international law if conditions in the country of return ensure the safety, dignity, and rights of returnees.

 

Although voluntary repatriation and cessation are distinct legal procedures related to refugee returns, they are closely interconnected. Article 1(C) of the 1951 Convention specifically regulates cessation in cases where international protection is no longer necessary or justified. In the Turkish legal framework the conditions necessitating the cessation of international protection are stipulated for refugee, conditional refugee and subsidiary protection statuses in Article 85 of the LFIP in line with the 1951 Convention. Return to the country of origin after the termination of temporary protection, which is regulated in Article 14 of the TPR, can also be considered as a form of cessation. This is because when the circumstances that necessitated international protection no longer exist, protection ceases, making return to the country of origin a natural outcome.

 

On the other hand, there are no uniform rules regarding the modality of voluntary repatriation. Relevant material and procedural conditions may vary depending on government policies. While return is always possible, ‘repatriation’ refers specifically to the facilitation of return. According to its Statute, UNHCR is tasked with promoting voluntary repatriation (UNHCR Statute, Art. 8/c).  Yet UNHCR verifies the following essential conditions before engaging in the voluntary repatriation of refugees: (i) changes of a profound nature in the country of origin, (ii) voluntary nature of the decision to return, (iii) timely dialogue between the host country, the country of origin and UNHCR and clear allocation of responsibilities through a tripartite agreement, and (iv) ensuring that the safety and dignity of returnees are respected.

 

UNHCR Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation emphasises the importance of ensuring that return is voluntary, safe, dignified, sustainable, and durable. These standards are also underlined in relevant literature (see: here, here, here and here). Moreover the voluntary nature of return means that it must be an informed choice rather than a result of reduced assistance and unbearable conditions in the host country. This requires the transparent provision of detailed information about security and living conditions in the country of origin to potential returnees. Dignified return necessitates guarantees against potential violations of the individual’s rights, whereas, according to UNHCR, safe return is only possible when three elements are met: legal, physical, and material safety. Physical safety requires a secure environment that ensures freedom of movement and access to territory. Legal safety entails equal treatment upon return. Material safety is established through access to humanitarian assistance. These factors are directly proportional to progress in improving security and living conditions in the country of origin. Regarding the threshold for improvement in conditions, UNHCR Discussion Note considers a “general improvement in the situation of the country of origin so that return in safety is both possible and desired” sufficient (UNHCR Discussion Note, para. 8.A.i). However, this threshold is open to criticism for being lower than the one expected for cessation while it is argued that repatriation should not take place before the circumstances have changed.  On the other hand, sustainable return could be achieved through facilitating and monitoring the reintegration of returnees.

 

In short, voluntary repatriation is a solution that can be implemented when, based on an objective assessment, the circumstances that led to displacement no longer exist, return is deemed feasible and in line with the principle of non-refoulement, and the process takes place in a safe and dignified manner. Accordingly, individuals’ return decisions will be shaped by these conditions.

 

Expectations for Return of Syrians to Their Country in the Short Term After the Fall of the Assad Regime and Relevant Obligations

 

As a country that has suffered extensive damage from conflicts, Syria remains unstable, with significant uncertainty about its future. Currently it is impossible to predict when voluntary repatriation will become a viable option for the beneficiaries of temporary protection. Several factors must be considered as a priority, including the uncertainty over which actor/s will control different parts of the county, the accommodation and housing needs of returnees, existing infrastructural deficiencies, and the limited availability of employment and livelihoods opportunities.

 

UNHCR reported the return of 270,000 Syrians from the neighbouring countries to Syria as of 5 February 2025 including 81,576 returnees from Türkiye. However, it remains unclear whether these returns are permanent. Many Syrians may have travelled back their home country to assess conditions, visiting their homes while waiting for the summer holiday to bring their children and other family members along. Despite these numbers, it is too early to draw optimistic conclusions in the short term.

 

Accordingly, certain factors need to be considered for a realistic plan:

 

Respect for legal obligations and the principle of non-refoulement:

 

As outlined above, the principle of non-refoulement, governed by Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, is reinforced by fundamental human rights principles. This protection is embodied in the Turkish legislation and the ECHR. Legal provisions safeguarding the right to life and prohibiting torture impose a duty on states to protect individuals from potential violations of these rights. In line with this, both the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) and the ECtHR have issued recent rulings assessing whether national authorities have adequately reviewed and corroborated applicants’ claims regarding the violation of their right to life or the risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return to conflict areas. (See A.A. ve A.A.; Abdulkerim Hammud; Hüsam İbrahim; Ali Elhüseyin cases by the TCC and L.M. and others v. Russia; M.D. and others v. Russia; Akkad v. Turkey cases by the ECtHR)

 

Therefore, regardless of whether temporary protection terminates collectively or individually, the State’s obligations under international law remain in effect. In all cases, states are required to uphold their legal commitments and respect the principle of non-refoulement. Moreover, returnees should be provided with comprehensive information and guidance to ensure their informed consent for safe and dignified return, thereby mitigating the risk of human rights violations.

 

States can facilitate “go-and-see” visits after conflicts end, allowing potential returnees to assess security conditions, find accommodation, seek employment or check the general situation in their home countries. Some of the visits facilitated by the Turkish Ministry of Interior after the fall of the Assad regime can be considered within this scope. The conditions of such exploratory visits are also included in the EU temporary protection framework.

 

Planning for processing of individual applications of those in need of protection:

 

Under the TPR the beneficiaries of temporary protection are not permitted to file individual asylum applications, and applications submitted before the TPR came into force cannot be processed (TPR, Art. 16 and Provisional Art. 1). In the event of collective termination of temporary protection, it should be a priority to plan how to process individual applications of those in need of international protection and what steps to take for those who no longer have a legal right to stay in the country. Since circumstances will vary on a case-by-case basis, status determination procedures must be initiated for those who claiming to be unable to return return due to their ongoing need for international protection. Assessments may be conducted on an individual or family basis to determine the place of origin (in this case, in Syria) and to establish whether it is safe for return, whether such individuals qualify for international protection, and if eligible, what status will be granted to them. These procedures will be essential in ensuring that protection needs are met while maintaining compliance with legal obligations.

 

Adoption of realistic approaches and transparent provision of information both to Syrians and the society:

 

Historical examples demonstrate that the return of Syrians is likely to be a realistic option only in the medium to long term. Past mass influx experiences have shown that states often hold overly optimistic expectations regarding safe and rapid returns. For instance, it took more than a decade for approximately 2 million temporarily protected Bosnians to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina following the Yugoslav crisis. Similarly, the return of those forcibly displaced due to conflicts in Burundi, Cambodia, Liberia, and South Sudan was also a prolonged process.  These examples suggest that adopting a cautious approach rather than an overly optimistic one would provide a more realistic perspective.

 

The UNHCR’s Position on Returns to Syria, published in December 2024, highlights that Syria is not yet safe for large-scale voluntary repatriation, emphasizing that returns should only begin once security, societal, and humanitarian issues are adequately addressed (para. 3). That said, it would also be inaccurate to portray the return of Syrians as an impossible prospect as repatriation to safe areas remains a possibility when based on informed consent. However, states, UNHCR, and relevant stakeholders must work together to facilitate returns through a multi-stage plan with a realistic timeline.

 

Ensuring sustainable reintegration of voluntarily returning returnees:

 

Furthermore, the sustainability of returns to Syria depends on development support for Syria and increased assistance and support to Türkiye, rather than the symbolic funding allocated in recent years. Even as of 2019, Turkish authorities reported having spent $40 billion on supporting Syrians in Türkiye. Meanwhile, following the destruction caused by internal conflicts and international sanctions, the estimated cost of reconstruction in Syria ranges between $250 billion and $400 billion.

 

Significant infrastructure development, well-equipped human resources, and targeted development assistance will be essential for any new government in Syria to create conditions conducive to return and stabilize the country. To secure such assistance from the international community, the new government must establish an inclusive and democratic regime.

 

Conclusion

 

There is a perception that large-scale returns to Syria will take place soon. However, given the situation on the ground, this is dependent on political, economic and legal realities. Voluntary repatriation is not only a political matter but also a legal one, as it must adhere to international standards that ensure safety, dignity and sustainability. Various challenges could facilitate or hinder this process including political fragmentation, economic instability and security concerns. Above all a well-managed and inclusive reconstruction process will be essential. This process would demonstrate how a nation composed of diverse ethnic and sectarian groups, with weak sense of nationhood and limited resources, can transform into a stable and secure country within a relatively short period. Ultimately, time will determine whether large-scale voluntary repatriation to Syria will be possible. While a democratic and stable government is the ideal scenario for the future of Syria, the opposite also remains a possibility in the near future.

 

 

Pyrrhic victory for the Greek government: the CJEU rules on Turkey as a “safe third country”

Professor Steve Peers, Royal Holloway University of London

Photo credit: Mstyslav Chernov, via Wikimedia Commons

Hamster idiom credit: Adam Sharp

(Thanks to Zoe Gardner for discussion of the case; the following analysis is my own)

 

Introduction

Remember the ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015-16? One part of the EU’s response to it was to negotiate a ‘joint statement’ with Turkey (see comments and criticism here, here and here) that, among other things, led to Turkey agreeing to take back asylum-seekers from the Greek islands. Greece facilitated the application of this process by determining that Turkey was a ‘safe third country’ (ie that asylum-seekers could and should have applied there instead, given that this other country is ‘safe’) under EU asylum law, initially for Syrian asylum-seekers in the eastern Greek islands. Faced with a legal challenge to this determination, the Greek Council of State ruled in 2017 that the determination was legal, deciding by a 13-12 vote not to ask the CJEU to interpret the issue of EU law at stake. For its part the EU General Court (upheld on appeal by the CJEU) rejected legal challenges to the joint statement, on the frankly bizarre ground that the European Council had nothing to do with the EU/Turkey joint statement (which referred to EU law issues such as visa waivers).

Subsequently in 2020, Turkey decided to refuse all readmission of asylum-seekers from Greece, stating that (as quoted in note 10 of the Advocate-General’s opinion):

 Responding to repeated requests from the Greek authorities and the European Commission regarding the resumption of return operations, [the Republic of Türkiye] has stated that no return operation would take place unless the alleged pushbacks along the Turkish-Greek border stop and [the Hellenic Republic] revokes its decision to consider [the Republic of Türkiye] a Safe Third Country.

Greece nevertheless decided to list Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ more broadly in 2021, for asylum-seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Somalia; it added Albania and North Macedonia to its ‘safe third country’ list soon afterwards. In light of the EU law rules on ‘safe third country’ (discussed further below), two NGOs (the Greek Council for Refugees and Refugee Support in the Aegean) decided to challenge the Greek government decision to list Turkey, resulting this time in the view of the Council of State in February 2023 (by an 18-4 vote) that the listing of Turkey was invalid, on the grounds that EU law precluded designating a country which refused to readmit asylum-seekers as a ‘safe third country’. (Other EU law arguments against the designation of Turkey were rejected by the national court and not referred to the CJEU: see the analysis by Minos Mouzourakis).  But unlike in 2017, there was great deference to the view of the (much smaller) minority (two judges apiece argued that the issue of readmission was relevant instead when ruling applications inadmissible, or when enforcing that decision). So the national court decided to ask the CJEU questions about the interpretation of EU law on the readmission point before giving its final ruling. The CJEU delivered its judgment last Friday.

This is not only the first time that the CJEU has been asked about an aspect of the EU/Turkey asylum relationship. Remarkably, despite the huge number of asylum seekers that have come to Greece over the last decade and more, this is also the first time that the CJEU has been asked any questions about EU asylum law by any Greek court.

 

EU legal framework

Legislation

The definition of ‘safe third country’ for the EU is currently set out in Article 38 of the EU’s asylum procedures Directive. (This is about the ‘safety’ of non-EU countries, ie it is distinct from the EU Member States regarding each other as ‘safe’ countries, under the Dublin rules) First, Article 38(1) provides that the (optional) ‘safe third country’ concept can ‘only’ be applied if Member States are satisfied that certain ‘principles’ are ensured for asylum-seekers in that country: (a) ‘life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’; (b) ‘there is no risk of serious harm as defined in’ the EU qualification Directive; (c) ‘the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva [Refugee] Convention is respected’; (d)  ‘prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected’; and (e) ‘the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention’.

Secondly, Article 38(2) requires Member States to subject the application of the ‘safe third country’ rule to national law rules, including: (a) ‘requiring a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for that person to go to that country’; (b) ‘rules on the methodology by which the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant. Such methodology shall include case-by-case consideration of the safety of the country for a particular applicant and/or national designation of countries considered to be generally safe’; and (c) ‘rules in accordance with international law, allowing an individual examination of whether the third country concerned is safe for a particular applicant which, as a minimum, shall permit the applicant to challenge the application of the safe third country concept on the grounds that the third country is not safe in his or her particular circumstances’. Also, an asylum-seeker must ‘be allowed to challenge the existence of a connection between him or her and the third country’, as referred to in point (a).

Next, Article 38(3) requires Member States to inform the applicant that the principle is being applied to them, and also to give the asylum-seeker a document informing the supposedly ‘safe’ third country that the merits of their asylum claim have not been examined.

Crucially for this case, Article 38(4) then provides that:

Where the third country does not permit the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II. [ie an ‘ordinary’ examination of the merits of an asylum claim]

Finally, Article 38(5) obliges Member States to inform the Commission of their use of the concept.

The practical relevance of applying the ‘safe third country’ notion is (among other things) that it is a ground of (optional) inadmissibility under Article 33 of the Directive. And if the case is inadmissible, the asylum application is not further considered on the merits and has failed in that Member State (subject to an appeal of the inadmissibility decision, or the limited prospect of a ‘repeat application’, discussed further below). The failed asylum-seeker can then deprived of support as an asylum seeker under the reception conditions Directive and detained and removed under the Returns Directive. Of course, the impact of this is in theory ameliorated in ‘safe third country’ cases because the supposedly ‘safe’ country will readmit the person concerned and consider their asylum application properly. In practice, as we have seen, Turkey was explicitly and unambiguously refusing to readmit asylum-seekers from Greece in the context of the ‘safe third country’ concept.

Case law

The CJEU had interpreted the ‘safe third country’ rule in some prior case law, all concerning Hungary. First of all, in Case C‑564/18 (paras 29-51 of the judgment), the CJEU confirmed that the grounds of inadmissibility listed in the Directive were exhaustive (‘only’), and ruled that a national law applying a ‘safe third country’ principle to non-EU States where the asylum-seeker ‘as not exposed to persecution or a risk of serious harm, or in which a sufficient degree of protection is guaranteed’ was not consistent with the requirements of Article 38(1) of the Directive, in particular because it omitted the ‘non-refoulement’ requirement. Moreover, mere transit through the non-EU country was not enough for there to be a ‘connection’ with that country as required by Article 38(2).

Next, the Court reiterated these points in its judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU (paras 148-165); but questions about what happens when the non-EU State refuses to readmit the asylum-seekers – the issue since addressed in last week’s judgment – were ruled inadmissible (paras 166-174). However, the Advocate-General’s opinion in that case discusses the issue (paras 107-127), taking the view that the refusal of readmission is only relevant at the point of enforcement of a decision based on the principle.  

Finally, in Commission v Hungary (Case C‑821/19), along with ruling on the criminalisation of assistance to asylum seekers, the Court again reiterated that the Hungarian law breached Article 38(1) and (2) of the Directive. The existence of a (then) pending proposal to amend the Directive on this point (since adopted as part of the 2024 asylum pact – but without some of the changes originally proposed) was irrelevant in determining whether a Member State was in breach of EU law at the time of the alleged breach.

 

Greek practice

As noted above, Greece had listed Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ despite Turkey’s refusal to readmit anyone in that context. While the CJEU judgment says nothing about the practice of the authorities, and the Advocate-General’s opinion says little (paras 65-68 of the opinion), one can find rather more information at the bottom of the ivory tower, in the recent Pro-Asyl report on the ‘safe third country’ principle in Greece, and in the annual AIDA report on Greece (‘safe third country’ section).

The reports state that over 10,000 asylum claims have been found inadmissible on the basis of the Greek listing of Turkey as a ‘safe third country’, although around 12,000 asylum claims have been found admissible (in some cases because the asylum-seekers argued that Turkey had not allowed them to make an asylum claim, or due to past exposure to refoulement, ie return to an unsafe country, or because they lacked a sufficient ‘connection’ with Turkey, on the basis of the national law implementing Article 38(2) of the Directive). Also, the reports are highly critical of the conclusion that Turkey is ‘safe’ – although the recent CJEU judgment does not address this issue, because the national court did not ask the CJEU about it.

Like the Advocate-General’s opinion, the Pro-Asyl study reports that Greek authorities apply the readmission test at the point of enforcement of a ‘safe third country’ decision. When Turkey then refuses readmission, the Greek bodies refuse to withdraw their prior decisions, leaving asylum-seekers to make a ‘repeat application’. But there are delays in registering these applications, and the authorities often reject them because they do not believe that the refusal of readmission is a ‘new element or finding’ (as required for a repeat application to be admissible under the EU Directive). But at least some courts rule against detention in such cases, given that there is no reasonable prospect of return (as required by the Returns Directive).

 

The judgment

The CJEU’s judgment began by answering the first question referred by the national court, rephrasing it as asking ‘in essence, whether’ the ‘safe third country’ rule in the Directive, ‘read in the light of Article 18 of the Charter’ on the right to asylum, ‘must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State classifying a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection where, despite the legal obligation to which it is subject, that third country has generally suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory and there is no foreseeable prospect of a change in that position’.

First, the Court reiterated its case law that the grounds for inadmissibility of asylum applications in the procedures Directive (including ‘safe third country’ as defined in the Directive) are ‘exhaustive’, ie the Member States cannot add more grounds of their own (such as a divergent national definition of ‘safe third country’). It pointed out that the EU law definition ‘is subject to compliance with the cumulative conditions laid down’ in Article 38 of the Directive, as summarised above. But as the national court had already ruled that Greek law complied with the basic principles in Article 38(1), the CJEU did not examine that point. But it summarised the requirements for national law set out in Article 38(2) and the information obligations in Article 38(3), then recalled the Article 38(4) rule that ‘where the third country concerned does not permit the applicant for international protection to enter its territory, the Member States are to ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II of that directive’.

In the CJEU’s view, it followed from this first from the wording of the Directive that a Member State can designate a country as ‘generally safe’ by ‘an act of general application’. The references to national law in Article 38(2) referred to such a designation, as did the preamble to the Directive. Also, the Directive did not make the validity of such a general act ‘subject to the condition that it be proved that the applicants for international protection concerned will actually be admitted or readmitted to the territory of that third country’. This was not among the national law rules in Article 38(2); and the wording of Article 38(4) implied that the designation of the third country as ‘safe’ preceded the consideration of the issue of whether that country actually readmitted asylum seekers.

The CJEU also believed that this followed from the context of the Directive, in particular by comparison with the wording of the rules on ‘first country of asylum’ (ie where the asylum seeker already had protection, as distinct from where they could have sought it) on the readmission issue.

Finally, in the CJEU’s view, this interpretation also did not conflict with the objective of the Directive, as set out in the preamble, that in the interests of asylum-seekers in particular, asylum applications ‘should be made as soon as possible, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination being carried out’. This objective was addressed by Article 38(4), requiring that a Member State ‘ensure’ access to an asylum decision on the merits, in accordance with the usual rules, if the ‘safe third country’ refused readmission. And then a key point:

54      It follows that, where it is established that the third country designated as generally safe by a Member State does not in fact admit or readmit the applicants for international protection concerned, that Member State cannot reject their applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32. Furthermore, that Member State may not unjustifiably postpone the examination of those applications and must, inter alia, ensure that that examination is conducted on an individual basis, in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) of that directive and in compliance with the time limits set out in Article 31 thereof.

This interpretation, in the Court’s view, ‘is likewise not such as to deprive of any practical effect the right of an applicant for international protection, as enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter and given specific expression by that directive, to obtain the status of beneficiary of international protection, provided that the conditions required by EU law are met.

Having ruled, in effect, that the designation of Turkey was valid, the CJEU felt it was unnecessary to answer the second and third questions referred by the national court, on whether the refusal of readmission was a factor to be considered at the admissibility or the enforcement stage. But as we have seen, the Court had already de facto answered the second question: if it is ‘established’ that the ‘safe’ third country ‘does not in fact’ readmit the asylum seekers concerned, a Member State ‘cannot’ find their applications admissible, and must consider those applications on the merits (moreover, without ‘unjustifiable’ postponement, and subject to the deadlines in the Directive). And that renders the third question moot.

 

Comments

Greece can have a dog; but it will be wagged by its Turkish tail. That is the effect of the Court’s judgment: in more technical legal language, Turkey can remain on Greece’s ‘safe third country’ list, but the practical impact of this is zero as long as Turkey refuses to readmit asylum-seekers from Greece, because asylum applications cannot be found inadmissible on this ground. The wheel of designation of Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ keeps spinning, but the hamster of inadmissibility of asylum applications is dead. Let’s unpack this further, examining first the reasoning of the judgment and then its potential consequences.  

Judicial reasoning

The CJEU begins by, with respect, answering a ‘straw man’ question that it had not been asked.  The national court did not ask the CJEU if it was possible to designate ‘safe third countries’ at all; rather it asked if those countries could be designated if they failed to readmit asylum-seekers. The references to common principles on ‘safe third countries’ in the preamble to the Directive do not answer the question as to what those common principles are; a rule that failure to readmit precludes listing a country would be a ‘common principle’ too. However, the Court’s points that Article 38(2) on national law and (especially) Article 38(4) on readmission presume that the country concerned is already on a list are more convincing.

Most importantly, the Court’s finding that applications cannot be inadmissible on ‘safe third country’ grounds where the country concerned refuses to readmit, requiring a Member State to consider the merits of such applications, is particularly convincing.  Given that between Greece and Turkey the readmission will not take place, and in light of the evidence that repeat applications are difficult to make and are often rejected, this is the best way to ensure that the obligations set out in Article 38(4), coupled with the principle of considering applications as soon as possible, are met.

Unlike some judgments, this is not so much a ‘liberal’ or ‘activist’ interpretation of EU asylum law by the CJEU, but rather the overdue termination of conservative activism by the Greek authorities and lower courts. In light of the clear obligation in Article 38(4) to consider the merits of an asylum application if the asylum seeker is not readmitted to a ‘safe third country’, in the context of the absolute refusal of Turkey to readmit, the failure of the authorities to consider the merits of many of those applications, and of the courts to require them to do so, is unjustifiable and frankly shocking.

Consequences in practice

First and foremost, what happens to the 10,000 plus asylum seekers whose applications were already rejected as inadmissible? As noted above, some had previously tried to make repeat applications, but faced the difficulty that they had to invoke ‘new elements or findings’ in order to do so, which was often difficult to do. But their ability to invoke the ‘repeat applications’ clause in the Directive has now, as a consequence purely of the Court of Justice’s recent judgment, undergone a Copernican revolution. This is because the CJEU has previously ruled (see Joined Cases C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU, paras 175-203, confirmed in Case C-216/22) that its own judgments on EU asylum law are a new element or finding in filing a repeat application, where those judgments are relevant and add significantly to the likelihood of an asylum application being successful. For those asylum-seekers whose application was found inadmissible on ‘safe third country’ grounds despite Turkey’s refusal to readmit them, last week’s judgment is obviously highly relevant; and overturning the finding that their applications were inadmissible equally obviously significantly increases the odds that their application will be successful. (Moreover, the judgment in Joined Cases C-924/19 and C-925/19 PPU is especially relevant by analogy here, since the prior national judgments which conflicted with a later CJEU judgment in that case also concerned an unlawful application of the ‘safe third country’ rules).

Therefore, if the rejected asylum-seekers apply again, the Greek asylum system will now have to decide on the merits of thousands of asylum applications that it wrongly ruled were inadmissible in the first place. A pending CJEU case referred from Ireland may be relevant by analogy in establishing whether Greece has to pay damages too. Finally, if any Afghan women asylum-seekers were among those whose applications were considered inadmissible, they can also rely on another CJEU judgment from the same day (discussed here) as a ‘new element or finding’, supporting the merits and fast-tracking of their gender-based persecution claims.

As for current or future applicants, their applications cannot be rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey is a 'safe third country' at all. Nor can they be rejected on the grounds that Turkey is a ‘first country of asylum’ for them: without even looking at the substance of that concept, the CJEU judgment explicitly stated that this principle cannot even get off the ground if the country concerned will not readmit the asylum seeker.

What about applicants after the asylum pact takes effect? The Court of Justice judgment from last week only mentions the new asylum procedures Regulation (discussed here) in passing, but as the Advocate-General’s opinion pointed out (in para 64), the interpretation of the Directive ultimately followed by the Court is explicitly set out in the Regulation, now being built into the definition of inadmissibility – also as regards the ‘first country of asylum’ principle (these grounds of inadmissibility can be invoked for either principle ‘unless it is clear that the applicant will not be admitted or readmitted to that country’). (See also recital 53 in the preamble to the Regulation). Whether the planned review of the ‘safe third country’ rules in the Regulation in 2025 affects these issues remains to be seen.

Finally, the Court’s judgment understandably only dealt with situations where the refusal of readmission is certain at the time of considering the possible application of the ‘safe third country’ rule. It did not deal with the scenario where refusal was merely a possibility – as that was hypothetical on the facts. How should such cases be dealt with?

The starting point is that the current Directive (recital 44 in the preamble) implies the possibility of an inadmissibility decision in that scenario: Member States do not have to examine the merits of an application where ‘there are grounds for considering that the applicant will be admitted or readmitted to that [‘safe’ third] country’. The inadmissibility rule in the new Regulation points in the same direction: it can’t be applied if ‘it is clear that’ readmission is not going to happen (see also recital 43 in the preamble to the Regulation). But this implies that the inadmissibility rule can be applied if it is not clear that readmission is ruled out. On the other hand, the recent judgment points to the importance of deciding on applications as soon as possible, without unjustifiable postponements, while ensuring the application of the Charter right to asylum. How best to reconcile the possibility of the adoption of inadmissibility decisions with the need to take decisions speedily and afford an effective prospect of having an asylum application decided on the merits, if there is uncertainty about whether readmission will actually take place?

The 2024 procedures Regulation already expressly provides (in recital 53 in the preamble) that access to the Member State’s asylum system must be offered again if readmission does not take place:

…if the applicant is eventually not admitted or readmitted to the third country after the application has been rejected as inadmissible, the applicant should again have access to the procedure for international protection in accordance with this Regulation

How should that principle apply in concrete terms? The best approach is to infer an obligation upon the Member State to act with due diligence to attempt to secure the readmission, starting as soon as it takes the inadmissibility decision (after any appeals, or the prospect of appeals, against that decision are spent). From that point, the Member State should have a reasonable time frame to request readmission from the non-EU country concerned. By analogy with the procedures Regulation time limit for deciding on inadmissibility, two months should be sufficient. If the non-EU country refuses readmission, or does not reply within the time limit set out in the readmission arrangements in force, or accepts readmission in principle but does not carry it out in practice within the relevant time limit, then the Member State’s obligation to consider the application on the merits where readmission does not take place must be triggered. Procedurally either the inadmissibility decision must be considered as withdrawn from that point (it makes sense to consider it as only provisional until readmission is actually carried out), or a repeat application must be considered – the requirement of new developments being satisfied by the inability, subsequent to the inadmissibility decision, to ensure readmission in practice within a reasonable time frame. The inadmissibility decision was based on the presumption that readmission would be secured within a reasonable period; that presumption has since been rebutted.

The final word on the impact of last week’s judgment should go to the asylum NGOs who brought the case:

…the CJEU’s judgment is of major importance because it overturns an arbitrary and abusive practice of the Greek authorities which has been in force for many years, of wholesale rejecting asylum applications as inadmissible under the safe third country principle, and puts an end to the denial of the rights of thousands of applicants, by prohibiting their rejection when there is no possibility of their readmission to Türkiye and dictating their individual examination in accordance with the Directive.