(1)

Under Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 of the European Parliament and the Council (3), specific rules apply where an applicant comes from a safe country of origin. In particular, the examination of an application has to be accelerated and, if the applicant has not yet been authorised to enter the territory of the Member States, a Member State may examine the merits of an application in a border procedure.

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 provides for the possibility to designate third countries as safe countries of origin at Union level in accordance with the conditions laid down in that Regulation. It is necessary to strengthen the application of the concept of safe country of origin as an essential tool to support the swift examination of applications that are likely to be unfounded by designating third countries as safe countries of origin. It is also necessary to address some of the existing divergences between Member States’ national lists of safe countries of origin. Therefore, a list of safe countries of origin at Union level should be established. While Member States retain the right to apply or introduce legislation that allows for the national designation of third countries as safe countries of origin other than those designated as such at Union level, such common designation at Union level should ensure that the concept of safe country of origin is applied by all Member States in a uniform manner in relation to applicants whose countries of origin are designated as safe countries of origin.

(3)

The fact that a third country is considered as a safe country of origin, either at Union or at national level, cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for nationals of that country, even for those who do not belong to a category of persons for which an exception is made when designating that country as a safe country of origin, and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application for international protection. By its very nature, the assessment of whether a third country should be designated as a safe country of origin can only take into account the general, civil, legal and political circumstances in that country and whether actors of persecution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are subject to sanction in practice when found liable in that country. Member States may apply the concept of safe country of origin only where the applicant cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to him or her, in the framework of an individual assessment, and provided that the applicant has the nationality of that country or provided that he or she is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country. The application of the concept of safe country of origin in the framework of the individual assessment is without prejudice to the fact that certain categories of applicants may find themselves in a specific situation in the third countries designated as safe countries of origin and may therefore have a well-founded fear of being persecuted or face a real risk of suffering serious harm.

(4)

The assessment of whether a third country should be designated as a safe country of origin is based on a range of relevant and available sources of information, including information from Member States, the European Union Agency for Asylum (the ‘Asylum Agency’) established by Regulation (EU) 2021/2303 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the European External Action Service, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and other relevant international organisations. The assessment also takes into account, where available, the common analysis of the country of origin information referred to in Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2024/1348. Based on a range of such sources of information, a number of third countries are considered to qualify as safe countries of origin.

(5)

The designation of a third country as a safe country of origin under Article 62 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is based on information from reliable, official and duly substantiated relevant and available sources. Moreover, that designation reflects the general situation in that country and is not affected by the individual circumstances, which may only be assessed for the purposes of determining whether the concept of safe country of origin should exceptionally not be applied in a specific case. Therefore, in the context of national judicial review, the detailed evidence regarding an applicant’s individual situation justifying the applicability of the concept of safe country of origin should be the main purpose of that assessment. In accordance with the Treaties, the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to rule on any doubts on the validity of a designation of a third country as a safe country of origin at Union level.

(6)

With regard to a country that has been granted the status of candidate State for accession to the Union (‘candidate country’), the Treaty on European Union (TEU) sets out the conditions and principles to which any country wishing to become a Member State must conform. Those conditions and principles were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 (the ‘Copenhagen criteria’) and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995. The Copenhagen criteria are the following: stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union, and the ability to take on the obligations of Union membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards and policies that make up the body of Union law, and adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

(7)

A country is granted candidate country status by the European Council through a unanimous decision, on the basis of an opinion from the Commission, drawn up following the country’s application for Union membership. With regard, in particular, to the political criteria for Union membership, the candidate countries were found to have advanced towards reaching the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. It can, therefore, be concluded that those third countries that have been granted candidate country status should be considered as safe countries of origin within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and should accordingly be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. Those designations are without prejudice to any future decisions to be taken by the European Council or by the Council on the admission of candidate countries into the Union. However, due account should be taken of the fact that the situation in a candidate country could change to the extent that the designation of that country as a safe country of origin should no longer apply. Therefore, this Regulation should provide that the designation of a third country that has been granted candidate country status as a safe country of origin should no longer be applied where any of the following circumstances apply: there is a serious threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in the third country; restrictive measures within the meaning of Title IV of Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have been adopted in view of the third country’s actions affecting fundamental rights and freedoms that are relevant for the designation as a safe country of origin; or the Union-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the third country is higher than 20 % of the total number of decisions for that third country issued by the determining authority. Member States should not apply the concept of safe country of origin to applicants from a candidate country during the period in which the circumstances provided for by this Regulation persist.

(8)

In considering whether a serious threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict exists in a candidate country, a broad range of relevant sources of information, including information from any relevant institution, body, office or agency of the Union or an international organisation should be taken into account. In particular, it should be taken into account whether the European Council or the Council has acknowledged the existence of a situation of international or internal armed conflict in the candidate country concerned, including whether a Council Decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive 2001/55/EC (5) as a consequence of the existence of a situation of armed conflict. Similarly, when considering whether there is no longer a serious threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in a candidate country, the fact that the European Council or the Council has acknowledged that the relevant circumstances have ceased to exist should be taken into account, including where a Council Decision has been adopted in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/55/EC as a consequence of the end of a situation of armed conflict.

(9)

It is essential that the designation of candidate countries as safe countries of origin is applied uniformly in all Member States, including as regards the circumstances set out in this Regulation where those countries should no longer be considered as safe countries of origin. To facilitate the uniform implementation of this Regulation and to provide legal certainty, the Commission should continuously monitor the situation in the candidate countries and inform the Member States, the European Parliament and the Council where, on the basis of the available information, any of those circumstances apply or cease to apply in one of those countries, making such information immediately and publicly available through the publication of a notice in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union. In view of the potential implications for the external relations of the Union and the Member States, the Commission should not inform the Member States and the European Parliament of the fact that a serious threat to a civilian’s life or person exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in a candidate country without the prior approval of the Council. Accordingly, before informing the Member States and the European Parliament of any serious threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict in a candidate country, the Commission should notify the Council, which should give its prior approval.

(10)

With regard to Kosovo (*), according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 16 Member States currently designate Kosovo as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Kosovo was 5 % in 2024. Kosovo is a potential candidate for Union membership. Its Constitution incorporates the main international human rights instruments. Kosovo is a multi-party parliamentary representative democracy with a separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial institutions and the relevant legal framework is in line with European standards. In general its legal framework guarantees the protection of fundamental rights and it is in line with European standards. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Kosovo to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is no risk of serious harm in Kosovo within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Under the national law of Kosovo there is no death penalty and authorities of Kosovo show commitment to the prevention of torture and ill treatment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Kosovo and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is no persecution in Kosovo within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(11)

With regard to Bangladesh, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, six Member States currently designate Bangladesh as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Bangladesh was 4 % in 2024. The country has ratified some international human rights instruments. Bangladesh is a parliamentary republic governed by a constitution, which prescribes the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Bangladesh to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Although Bangladesh retains the death penalty and did not sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty, death sentences are rarely carried out. Bangladesh has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Bangladesh and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(12)

With regard to Colombia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, no Member State currently designates Colombia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Colombia was 5 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. The 1991 Constitution and ensuing jurisprudence by the Constitutional Court provide for strong human rights guarantees. Colombia is a federal republic with a democratic representative political system and a separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. There are no indications of widespread expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Colombia to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no risk of serious harm in Colombia within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347, except in specific rural areas with no integral presence of the State. The death penalty is prohibited under the Colombian Constitution. Its legal framework prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is in line with international standards. There is no generalised threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(13)

With regard to Egypt, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, six Member States currently designate Egypt as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Egypt was 4 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Egypt is a republic where the President serves as both the head of state and the head of the executive. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Egypt to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Although Egypt retains the death penalty under the Penal Code and military laws, Egypt has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Egypt has declared in its National Strategy for Human Rights its intention to reform the law on pre-trial detention, ameliorate detention conditions, limit the number of crimes punished by death and enhance the culture of human rights across all government institutions. Effective implementation is needed, progress having so far been made in the institutional track. There is no armed conflict taking place in Egypt and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(14)

With regard to India, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, nine Member States currently designate India as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from India was 2 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. India is a constitutional republic and a parliamentary democracy. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of India to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. India retains the death penalty in its criminal law and did not sign the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty, nevertheless, the death penalty has not been applied in practice since 2020. India has signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in India and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(15)

With regard to Morocco, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 11 Member States currently designate Morocco as a safe country of origin at national level and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Morocco was 4 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. Morocco is a parliamentary monarchy. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Morocco to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Morocco has observed a moratorium on the application of the death penalty since 1993, although it retains the death penalty in its criminal law and has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. Morocco has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Morocco and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(16)

With regard to Tunisia, according to the information from the Asylum Agency, 10 Member States currently designate Tunisia as a safe country of origin at national level, and the Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from Tunisia was 4 % in 2024. The country has ratified the main international human rights instruments. The 2022 Constitution establishes a presidential system. There are no indications of expulsion, removal or extradition of citizens of Tunisia to countries where there is a risk that they would be subjected to the death penalty, torture, persecution, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. There is, in general, no real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347. Tunisia has observed a moratorium on the application of the death penalty since 1991, although it retains the death penalty in its criminal law and has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. Tunisia has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. There is no armed conflict taking place in Tunisia and therefore no threat exists by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. There is, in general, no persecution in the country within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

(17)

Pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 a third country may only be designated as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 and no real risk of serious harm as defined in Article 15 of that Regulation.

(18)

Considering that there is, in general, no risk of persecution or serious harm, within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347, in Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as in Kosovo as a potential candidate for Union membership, as also shown by the very low recognition rates for applicants from those countries, it should be concluded that those countries satisfy the criteria to be considered safe countries of origin within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 and that those countries should be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level. This is without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to designate other third countries as safe countries of origin at national level and to the possible future designation of additional third countries, satisfying the conditions set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, as safe countries of origin at Union level by means of future amendments to that Regulation. The Commission should promptly consider any request from a Member State to assess whether additional third countries could be designated as safe countries of origin at Union level, taking into account, inter alia, a low Union-wide recognition rate for applicants from those countries.

(19)

The designation of countries as safe countries of origin at Union level is without prejudice to the rule set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, according to which Member States may apply the concept of a safe country of origin only where applicants cannot provide elements justifying why the concept of safe country of origin is not applicable to them, in the framework of an individual assessment. In that context, special attention should be paid to applicants who are in a specific situation in those countries, such as LGBTIQ persons, victims of gender-based violence, human rights defenders, religious minorities and journalists.

(20)

Significant changes in a third country designated as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level may disproportionately affect specific areas or groups of persons in that country, leading to different protection needs for certain applicants from that country and the necessity of safeguarding procedural guarantees of those applicants. Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 introduces the possibility to designate a third country as a safe third country or a safe country of origin with exceptions for specific parts of that third country’s territory or for clearly identifiable categories of persons. Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 also provides that the Commission is to suspend the designation of a third country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level by means of a delegated act where there is a significant change for the worse in the situation of that country. In order to address the situation where a third country designated as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level no longer satisfies, for the whole of its territory or for clearly identifiable categories of persons in that country, the material conditions for such a designation set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU in order to partially suspend that country’s designation in respect of specific parts of its territory or for clearly identifiable categories of persons in that country for a period of six months, where necessary, appropriate and proportionate in view of the significant changes in that country affecting that part of its territory or that category of persons. Moreover, within 3 months of the adoption of the delegated act providing for the partial suspension of the third country’s designation as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin at Union level, the Commission should present a legislative proposal to remove from the scope of that third country’s designation those parts of its territory to which the suspension applies or those categories of persons to whom the suspension applies. Where a Member State subsequently notifies the Commission that it considers, on the basis of a substantiated assessment, that, following changes in the situation of that third country, it once again fulfils the conditions set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 with respect to the country as a whole or to specific parts of its territory or to clearly identifiable categories of persons in that third country, the Commission should propose to amend the designation of that country as a safe third country or as a safe country of origin accordingly.

(21)

Considering that the migratory situation can rapidly change and that there is increased pressure resulting from the arrivals of mixed migratory flows with a high proportion of persons with low chances of receiving international protection, Member States should be able to apply Article 42(1), point (j), and Article 42(3), point (e), of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 from an earlier date than the general date of application of that Regulation to accelerate the examination of applications, provided that Member States have transposed the relevant provisions and implemented the special procedures set out in Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (7). That would allow Member States to react quickly and in a flexible manner to changes in the migratory flows. Considering that applications from such applicants are likely to be unfounded, dealing with them swiftly in an accelerated procedure or a border procedure would allow the asylum and migration authorities to assess genuine claims more efficiently, deliver faster decisions and thereby contribute to better and more credible functioning of asylum and return policies, in full respect of fundamental rights.

(22)

Moreover, in order to further take into account complex and actual situations in third countries not designated as safe third countries or safe countries of origin at Union level, Member States should, when applying or introducing legislation that allows for the national designation of such countries, be able to do so with exceptions for specific parts of the territory of such countries or for clearly identifiable categories of persons, before Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 starts to apply.

(23)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely the establishment of a common list of safe countries of origin at Union level and advancing the application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348, cannot be achieved by the Member States and can only be achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(24)

In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Ireland has notified, by letter of 22 July 2025, its wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.

(25)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

(26)

This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(27)

In light of the application of Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 from 12 June 2026 and in order to provide legal certainty as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication.

(28)

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 60, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

(2)

in Article 61, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

(3)

Article 62 is amended as follows:

(4)

Article 63 is replaced by the following:

(5)

in Article 64, paragraphs 2 and 3 are replaced by the following:

(6)

in Article 78, paragraph 2, the words ‘the Annex’ are replaced by ‘Annex I’;

(7)

Article 79 is amended as follows:

(8)

the sole Annex is numbered as ‘Annex I’;

(9)

the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation is added as Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2024/1348.