Within hours of the EU Council’s adoption of a common ‘safe-country’ list, an alliance of 212 civil-society organisations – including Germany’s Pro Asyl and Caritas – issued an open letter urging Berlin to veto the proposal in final trialogue talks. They argue the list, which labels states such as Egypt, Morocco and India as safe for returns, ignores real-world persecution risks and will “institutionalise refoulement”.
The German Interior Ministry rejected the criticism, noting that the directive allows for individual-risk assessments and that Germany’s administrative courts retain full oversight. Officials added that a harmonised list would end the current patchwork in which some EU members already deem the same countries safe and force returns via bilateral deals.
![EU safe-country plan faces backlash from 200+ NGOs, but Germany insists timeline stays on track]()
Legal scholars are divided. Some say the Council position merely codifies existing case-law and provides much-needed clarity for businesses hiring from the listed states. Others warn that accelerated rejections could overwhelm regional courts and create ‘airport limbo’ situations if return flights are not immediately available.
For HR departments the controversy is more than political. If certain source countries are branded safe, future student or job applicants may find it harder to lodge asylum claims as a back-up option, increasing the importance of robust work-visa pathways and employer-of-record structures.
Trialogue negotiations begin next week; Germany’s presidency still hopes to clinch a deal before year-end, but the NGO pushback could force additional safeguards or transitional clauses.
The German Interior Ministry rejected the criticism, noting that the directive allows for individual-risk assessments and that Germany’s administrative courts retain full oversight. Officials added that a harmonised list would end the current patchwork in which some EU members already deem the same countries safe and force returns via bilateral deals.
Legal scholars are divided. Some say the Council position merely codifies existing case-law and provides much-needed clarity for businesses hiring from the listed states. Others warn that accelerated rejections could overwhelm regional courts and create ‘airport limbo’ situations if return flights are not immediately available.
For HR departments the controversy is more than political. If certain source countries are branded safe, future student or job applicants may find it harder to lodge asylum claims as a back-up option, increasing the importance of robust work-visa pathways and employer-of-record structures.
Trialogue negotiations begin next week; Germany’s presidency still hopes to clinch a deal before year-end, but the NGO pushback could force additional safeguards or transitional clauses.
