Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept
Date: 2025-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, aid to refugees, foreign national, illegal migration, international protection, public safety, repatriation grant, return migration, right of asylum, third country

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.5.2025  COM(2025) 259 final 2025/0132 (COD)  Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third country’ concept {SWD(2025) 600 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

• 

Context and reasons for the proposal 

Article  77  of  the  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation  (2024/1348)  (‘APR’)  requires  the 
Commission to review the safe third country concept (‘STC’) and, where appropriate, propose 
any  targeted  amendments  by  12  June  2025.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  carried  out  a 
holistic review of the STC concept.  

In  this  context,  the  Commission  examined  whether  international  law  (the  1951  Geneva 
Convention  and  the  1950  European  Convention  of  Human  Rights)  and  EU  primary  law, 
including  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  EU,  allow  for  further  revisions  to  the 
conditions  for  applying  the  STC  concept  and  its  legal  safeguards,  with  the  aim  of  further 
facilitating  its  application  by  Member  States.  The  Commission  also  considered  Member 
States’ experiences and challenges in applying the STC concept, as expressed in various fora, 
and  assessed  whether  the  changes  introduced  under  the  APR  had  already  addressed  these 
issues  or  if  gaps  remained.  Finally,  the  Commission  analysed  relevant  jurisprudence  of  the 
Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) and of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’). 

The safe third country concept (‘STC’), currently governed by Article 33(2)(c) of the Asylum 
Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU (‘APD’)1, was revised as part of the Pact on Migration and 
Asylum adopted in May 2024.  

When  applying  the  ‘safe  third  country’  concept  (‘STC’),  Member  States  may  reject  asylum 
applications  as inadmissible without examining whether the persons meet  the conditions  for 
being  granted  protection  in  the  EU.  The  STC  concept  may  be  applied  as  part  of  the  border 
procedure.  
The  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation  2024/1348  (‘APR’)2  introduced  several  changes  to  the 
STC  rules,  aimed  at  allowing  for  a  broader  and  more  flexible  applicability  of  the  STC 
concept. These changes include:  

– 

– 

– 

1 

2 

3 

The  widening  of  the  criteria  allowing  designation  of  a  third  country  as  ‘safe’,  in 
particular allowing countries that are not parties to the Geneva Convention to also be 
designated as STCs, provided that they can offer ‘effective protection’3.  

An  explicit  reference  to  family  links  and  stay  in  the  third  country  as  possible 
indications of a connection (recital 48 APR). 

The option to designate a third country as ‘safe’ with exceptions for specific parts of 
its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons (recital 46 and Article 59(2) 
APR). 

Directive  2013/32/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  June  2013  on  common 
procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60. 
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, OJ 
L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024. 
Article 57(2) APR defines “effective protection” to include: the right to remain pending the examination 
of  the  application  for  protection;  adequate  standard  of  living  corresponding  to  the  overall  situation  in 
the  country;  access  to  healthcare  and  education  under  the  same  terms  as  for  nationals;  and  effective 
protection until the finding of a durable solution.  

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
– 

– 

The  introduction  of  a  presumption  of  safety  for  third  countries  with  which  the  EU 
has concluded a STC agreement pursuant to Article 218 TFEU (Article 59(7) APR). 

The introduction of the possibility to adopt common lists of STCs designated at EU 
level,  without  precluding  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  designate  additional 
STCs at national level (recital 81 and Articles 60, 63 and 64 APR). 

The  new  provisions  will  apply  as  of  June  2026.  In  relation  to  Article  59(2)  of  the  APR, 
concerning the possibility to designate a third country as ‘safe’ with territorial and/or category 
exceptions, the Commission recently proposed to advance its application4.  

The European Parliament and the Council considered that further legislative changes may be 
required  even  before  the  APR  applies.  Consequently,  Article  77  of  the  APR  tasks  the 
Commission  with  reviewing  the  STC  concept  by  12  June  2025  and  proposing,  where 
appropriate, any targeted amendments. 

• 

The review of the safe third country concept 

The Commission adopted a holistic approach to the review in accordance with the obligation 
under Article 77 of the APR5.  

As part of this review, the Commission examined the elements related to the STC concept and 
its application under the APR. These include:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

the conditions a third country must meet in order to be considered ‘safe’, as set out in 
Article 59 of the APR. In essence, there should be no risk of persecution or of serious 
harm in that third country; there must be the possibility to request and, if conditions 
are  fulfilled,  receive  effective  protection  as  defined  in  Article  57  of  the APR;  and 
the principle of non-refoulement must be respected. 

the existence of a connection between the applicant and the third country, meaning 
that  there  must  be  a  link  between  the  asylum  seeker  and  the  STC  that  makes  it 
reasonable to transfer the applicant to that STC.  

due  process  guarantees  established  by  the  APR  which  must  be  respected  by 
Member States applying the concept, notably an individual, case-by-case assessment 
of whether the country is safe for each applicant concerned, as well as the possibility 
for the applicant to challenge in court both the existence of a connection to the third 
country in question, as well as the automatic suspensive effect of the appeal, and the 
fact that the country would be safe given his/her specific circumstances (possibility 
to rebut the presumption of safety).  

As a result of this review, and after careful analysis, the Commission, concluded that there is 
scope to revise the connection criterion, as it is not a requirement under international law, and 
the  automatic  suspensive  effect  of  the  appeal.  However,  it  found  that  there  is  no  scope  for 
revision regarding the criteria for ‘safety’ of the third country, as they are already aligned with 
the minimum standards required under international law6. Other aspects linked to due process, 

4 

5 
6 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  amending  Regulation  (EU) 
2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, COM(2025) 
186 final of 16.4.2025.  
SWD (2025) 600 DG HOME SWD linked to safe third countries (STC) proposal 
Under recital 46 of the APR, effective protection implies “access to means of subsistence sufficient to 
maintain an adequate standard of living with regard to the overall situation of that hosting third country, 
access to healthcare and essential treatment of illnesses and to education under the conditions generally 
provided  for  in  that  third  country”.  Furthermore,  according  to  recital  51,  “access  to  means  of 
subsistence sufficient to maintain an adequate  standard of living” should be understood as “including 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
 
including  the  individual  assessment,  are  requirements  under  EU  and  international  law  and 
jurisprudence  as  essential  in  protecting  individuals  from  refoulement  and  preserving  their 
fundamental  rights.  Given  their  binding  nature  under  EU  and  international  law,  these 
safeguards must remain in place7.  

Therefore, the following two elements have been identified for a targeted amendment of the 
APR:  

(a) 

(b) 

the  requirement  of  a  connection  between  the  applicant  and  the  third  country 
(the connection criterion); and 

the suspensive effect of the appeal against decisions rejecting an application 
as inadmissible on the STC ground.  

Stakeholders  flagged  various  benefits  and  risks  for  each  alternative,  as  summarised  in  the 
section ‘stakeholder consultation’ below. 

A. Connection criterion 

The  Commission’s  review  found  that  the  non-binding  nature  of  the  connection  criterion  in 
international  law  allowed  room  for  its  revision. It  was  also  the  element  in  the  STC  concept 
under the APR that a significant majority of Member States identified as having the biggest 
impact in facilitating the application of the concept. On this basis, the Commission identified 
and  assessed  three  alternatives  for  revising  the  connection  criterion  in  the  context  of  the 
APR8. 

(1) 

Removal of the connection criterion as a mandatory requirement under EU law 

Since  the  connection  criterion  is  not  required  under  international  law,  one  alternative 
considered was to remove its mandatory nature from EU law, thus allowing Member States, 
when  applying  the  STC  concept,  the  possibility  to  choose  whether  to  apply  the  connection 
criterion or not, and how to define it in national law.  

This alternative would facilitate the application of the STC by Member States by potentially 
expanding the number of applicants to whom the STC concept could be applied, broadening 
the  pool  of  third  countries  with  which  to  collaborate  in  its  application,  and  eliminating  the 
need to prove the existence of a connection to a given STC. This would reduce administrative 
burden and increase the effectiveness of the processing of asylum applications. It could also 
contribute to increased responsibility sharing and possibly expand the global protection space. 
This  alternative  needs  to  be  applied  in  line  with  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights, 
including children’s rights.  

This  alternative  also  covered  the  possibility  of  excluding  specific  groups  of  vulnerable 
applicants, or introducing specific measures to prevent absconding (e.g., presumption of risk 
of absconding when applying the STC concept or introducing a new ground for detention in 
the Reception Conditions Directive). This alternative also included the possibility to conclude 

access to food, clothing, housing or shelter and the right to engage in gainful employment, for example 
through access to the labour market, under conditions not less favourable than those of non-nationals of 
the third country generally in the same circumstances”. These requirements are by and large equivalent 
to what the 1951 Geneva Convention requires for refugees legally staying on the territory:  the right to 
engage  in  wage-earning  employment  (Article  17  of  the  Geneva  Convention),  to  housing  (Article  21) 
and  to  self-employment  (Article  18)  should  be  granted  on  terms  as  favourable  as  for  third-country 
nationals  legally  residing  in  the  country;  the  right  of  access  to  education  (Article  22)  and  to  social 
security and benefits (Article 24) should be given on the same terms as for nationals. 
See section 3 of SWD (2025) 600 DG HOME SWD linked to safe third countries (STC) proposal 
See section 4 of SWD (2025) 600 DG HOME SWD linked to safe third countries (STC) proposal. 

3 

  EN 

7 
8 

EN 

 
agreements  or  arrangements  with  third  countries  requiring  the  examination  of  the  merits  of 
requests  for  effective  protection  made  by  applicants  whose  application  was  rejected  as 
inadmissible under the STC concept.  

These elements are part of this legislative proposal.  

(2) 

Considering transit as a sufficient criterion 

A  second  alternative  was  to  consider  that  mere  transit  of  the  applicant  through  a  safe  third 
country is a sufficient criterion to apply the STC concept to the individuals concerned.  

The inclusion of transit as a criterion would provide an additional objective link between the 
applicant  and  the  safe  third  country,  as  it  is  reasonable  to  expect  that  a  person  seeking 
international  protection  could  have  applied  for  protection  in  the  safe  third  country  through 
which  that  person  has  transited.  This  interpretation  aligns  with  the  approach  taken  by  the 
Commission  in  its  2016  proposal  for  an  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation9,  where  it 
acknowledged that transit  through a safe third country could  be sufficient to  apply  the STC 
concept. Recognising transit as a valid objective link facilitates the application of the concept 
and possibly expands the range of third countries with which Member States can cooperate on 
asylum  matters.  It  will  be  the  responsibility  of  the  competent  asylum  authorities  of  the 
Member States to prove such transit.  

The  possibility  of  introducing  a  specific  rebuttable  presumption  of  transit  was  considered, 
according  to  which  it  could  be  assumed  that  an  individual  arriving  irregularly  in  the  EU 
territory,  and  who  is  unable  to  demonstrate  a  direct  route  of  arrival,  must  have  transited 
through  at  least  one  third  country.  However,  it  was  concluded  that  the  introduction  of  a 
rebuttable  presumption  would  add  to  the  grounds  for  litigation,  which  factored  against  the 
desired simplification of the application of the STC concept. For this reason, the possibility of 
introducing a rebuttable presumption was discarded. 

(3) 

Defining the connection criterion in the APR but making it more flexible (which would 
also include transit) 

A  third  alternative  was  to  define  ‘connection’  under  EU  law  to  consider  cultural  ties  or 
knowledge of the language, in addition to transit, as sufficient links, possibly accompanied by 
a guidance document.  

This alternative could broaden the pool of potential STCs, as it goes beyond third countries on 
the  route  to  the  EU,  while  facilitating  cooperation  with  the  third  country  concerned  and 
contributing to increased responsibility sharing. Furthermore, it could facilitate the integration 
of  the  applicant  once  transferred,  thereby  enhancing  the  sustainability  of  the  transfer. 
However, the burden of proving a connection would always rest on the asylum authorities of 
the Member States.  This alternative was  therefore not  considered  to  bring about  the desired 
effect of simplifying the application of the STC concept.  

B. Suspensive effect of the appeal  

The  Commission  has  further  examined  whether  it  is  possible  to  simplify  the  appeal 
procedures concerning the application of the STC concept by making the suspensive effect of 
appeals against inadmissibility decisions non-automatic.  

9 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  common 
the  Union  and  repealing  Directive  2013/32/EU, 
international  protection 
procedure  for 
COM/2016/0467 final - 2016/0224 (COD). 

in 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
The question of whether an appeal against the application of the STC concept has automatic 
suspensive effect  is  particularly  important  in  cases of inadmissibility decisions  based on the 
STC  concept,  where  the  application  is  not  examined  on  its  merits.  The  nature  of  the 
fundamental rights at risk, and particularly the risk of refoulement, makes the guarantee of the 
suspensive  effect  of  the  appeal  in  the  APR  especially  important.  These  risks  were  flagged 
during the consultation process by some Member States, UNHCR, and civil society. 

Nevertheless,  removing  the  automatic  suspensive  effect  of  the  appeal  could  help  reduce 
procedural  delays  in  applying  the  STC  concept  and  prevent  potential  abuses  of  appeal 
opportunities  by  the  applicants,  while  still  ensuring  the  protection  of  the  applicant’s 
fundamental rights, by allowing them to request the suspensive effect. Furthermore, to ensure 
the protection of the rights  of applicants  from  the risk of  refoulement, there is  an automatic 
suspensive  effect  against  the  return  decision  taken  as  per  Article  37  APR  in  relation  to  the 
inadmissibility  decision  when  there  is  a  risk  of  breaching  the  principle  of non-refoulement. 
This  should  guarantee  that  the  persons  shall  not  be  transferred  where  there  is  a  risk  of 
refoulement  in  the  third  country,  or  where  there  is  a  risk  of  serious  harm,  or  inhuman  or 
degrading treatment, in the third country.  

Conclusions of the review 

The Commission has carefully weighed the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative 
for revising the APR provisions concerning the application of the STC concept. On balance, it 
considers that a combination of measures is most likely to achieve the desired flexibility and 
facilitate the application  of the STC  concept  by Member States, while maintaining  essential 
safeguards,  protecting  fundamental  rights  and  addressing  the  concerns  expressed  by  some 
stakeholders, as reflected in this proposal.  

This  proposal  therefore  would  allow,  but  not  require,  Member  States  to  apply  the  STC 
concept  when  (i)  there  is  a  connection  between  the  applicant  and  a  safe  third  country  in 
question, or (ii) where the applicant has transited through a safe third country, or (iii) in case 
of  no  connection  or  transit,  when  there  is  an  agreement  or  arrangement  with  a  safe  third 
country requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made 
by applicants  subject  to  that agreement or arrangement. The last option  should not  apply  to 
unaccompanied minors, for which connection or transit would always be required. In addition, 
Member States should ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in 
all decisions concerning minors. 

It also simplifies the appeal procedures on the application of the STC concept by proposing to 
make non-automatic the  suspensive effect of  appeals  against inadmissibility  decisions taken 
on the STC ground. 

• 

Objectives of the proposal 

The  main  objective  of  this  proposal  is  to  make  a  targeted  amendment  to  the  Asylum 
Procedure Regulation 2024/1348 so as to facilitate the application of the STC concept.  

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This proposal stems from Article 77 of the APR which tasks the Commission with reviewing 
the  STC  concept  by  12  June  2025  and  proposing,  where  appropriate,  any  targeted 
amendments. It is fully consistent with the objectives of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, as 
adopted on 14 May 2024. It is also aligned with the other legislative instruments adopted in 
relation to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, notably the Qualification Regulation, the recast 
Reception  Conditions  Directive,  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Management  Regulation,  the 
Screening Regulation and the Eurodac Regulation.  

EN 

5 

  EN 

Additionally, the proposal for the revision of the safe third country concept is consistent with 
the proposal for a Return Regulation10 insofar as the latter expands the scope of the EU rules 
on return to also cover returns carried out under the STC concept and upholds the safeguards 
(already) available to returnees under EU return rules, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 
and the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the respect of the principle of 
non-refoulement.  

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

This proposal is consistent with the comprehensive, long-term approach to more effective and 
coherent migration management, as set out in the Pact on Migration and Asylum involving, 
inter alia, placing migration at the centre of partnership and cooperation relations with third 
countries. From this perspective, and taking into account the proposal’s objective to guarantee 
the right to seek asylum as well as upholding fundamental rights of refugees, asylum seekers 
and migrants regardless of their status, the proposal aligns with the EU’s commitment to the 
objectives of the Global Refugee Compact.  

The proposal supports the overall objectives of the Pact, and in particular the goal of making 
the  processing  of  asylum  applications  in  the  EU  more  efficient  and  finding  solutions  to 
cooperate and share the burden with third countries. 

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The legal basis for the proposal is Article 78(2), point (d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union (TFEU).  

• 

Variable geometry 

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of Ireland in respect of 
the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) 
and  to  the  TFEU,  Ireland  shall  not  take  part  in  the  adoption  and  shall  not  be  bound  by  any 
measure  adopted  pursuant  to  Title  V  of  Part  Three  of  the  TFEU,  which  includes  measures 
establishing  a  Common  European  Asylum  System.  However,  pursuant  to  Article  3  of  that 
Protocol,  Ireland  may  decide  to  take  part  in  the adoption  and  application  of  such  measures. 
Ireland has given notice of its wish to take part in the Asylum Procedure Regulation. It may 
also choose to take part in the adoption and application of the present proposal, which amends 
the Asylum Procedure Regulation, in line with Articles 3 and 4a of Protocol 21. 

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

• 

Subsidiarity 

The  objective  of  this  proposal  is  to  make  a  targeted  amendment  to  the  Asylum  Procedure 
Regulation  aimed  at  making  the  application  of  the  STC  concept  more  flexible  for  Member 
States. The proposal maintains the optional nature of the application of the STC concept. 

The new procedures  should  be governed by the  same rules, regardless  of the Member State 
applying them, to ensure equity in the treatment of the applicants, third-country nationals or 

10 

COM(2025) 101 final. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
stateless  persons  subject  to  them,  as  well  as  clarity  and  legal  certainty  for  the  individual. 
Furthermore, Member States acting alone could create incentives for unauthorised movements 
from  one  Member  State  to  another,  depending  on  whether  and  how  they  apply  the  STC 
concept, or hamper Dublin transfers due to the divergent application of the concept.  

The objectives of this proposal cannot be achieved by the Member States alone. The objective 
of lifting some of the obstacles to the effective application of the STC concept calls for an EU 
framework,  which  is  necessary  to  ensure  a  consistent  and  coherent  application  of  the  STC 
concept  across  Member  States.  The  Union  must  therefore  act  and  may  adopt  measures  in 
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European 
Union.  

• 

Proportionality 

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the 
European Union, this proposal for a targeted amendment to the Asylum Procedure Regulation 
2024/1348 does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives, namely, to 
allow  Member  States  more  flexibility  in  the  application  of  the  STC  concept  in  line  with 
international law and in full respect of the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

The  instrument  chosen  is  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  amending  the  Asylum  Procedure 
Regulation. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Collection  of  knowledge  of 
legislation 

implementation  and  application  of  existing 

For the review of the STC concept, the Commission examined whether there is scope under 
international law (the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1950 European Convention of Human 
Rights)  to  further  revise  the  conditions  for  the  application  of  the  STC  concept  and  the 
associated  legal  safeguards  with  a  view  to  facilitate  the  application  of  the  concept  in  the 
Member States. The Commission also took into account the experience of the Member States 
in applying the STC concept so far, including the challenges encountered in the application of 
the  concept,  as  voiced  in  different  fora.  Finally,  the  Commission  analysed  the  relevant 
jurisprudence of the CJEU and of the ECtHR.  

As regards the factual information on the application of the STC concept by the EU Member 
States  so  far,  the  available  data  is  not  very  thorough,  but  indications  suggest  that  practices 
have, at best, been uneven11. Three Member States do not have the STC concept covered in 
national  legislation12.  All  other  Member  States  have  the  concept  included  in  national 
legislation, but there are differences in terms of its application: five Member States adopted 

11 

12 

See  for  example  EUAA  (2022):  Applying  the  Concept  of  Safe  Countries  in  the  Asylum  Procedure; 
Osso, B., 'Unpacking the Safe Third Country Concept in the European Union: Borders, Legal Spaces, 
and  Asylum  in  the  Shadow  of  Externalization',  International  Journal  of  Refugee  Law,  Vol.  35(3), 
October 2023.  Thym,  D.,  Expert  Opinion  on  Legal  Requirements  for  Safe  Third  Countries  in  Asylum 
Law and Practical Implementation Options, April 2024. 
FR, IT, PL. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

 
lists of safe third countries13, in twelve Member States the concept is applied only on a case-
by-case basis14, and six Member States do not apply the concept in practice15. 

• 

Stakeholder consultations 

The  Commission  consulted  Member  States,  the  European  Parliament,  civil  society 
organisations and UNHCR between December 2024 and February 2025. Discussions focused 
on  the  connection  criterion  and  the  automatic  suspensive  effect  of  appeals  against 
inadmissibility decisions based on the STC ground.  

Discussions  with  Member  States  took  place  in  various  fora,  including  Coreper,  the  Asylum 
Working  Party,  Strategic  Committee  on  Immigration,  Frontiers  and  Asylum  (SCIFA)  and 
informal  consultations  organised  by  the  Commission  on  27  January  and  27  February  2025. 
Discussions  with  Members of  the European Parliament took  place on 18 February and with 
civil society organisations on 19 February 2025. 

In these exchanges, a large majority of Member States expressed support for reviewing the 
STC  concept  and  favoured  a  targeted  amendment  of  the  APR  to  remove  the  connection 
criterion and the automatic suspensive effect of appeals, viewing these changes as a means to 
enhance  efficiency,  provide  greater  flexibility  in  managing  asylum  applications,  particularly 
during  times  of  disproportionate  migratory  pressure,  and  reduce  administrative  burdens.  A 
minority  of  Member  States  were  against  the  deletion  of  the  requirement  of  the  connection 
criterion and would prefer a flexible definition of connection. 

Member  States  supporting  the  removal  of  the  connection  criterion  as  a  compulsory 
requirement emphasised that it would broaden the potential scope of applicants eligible for the 
STC  concept,  allowing  more  asylum  seekers  to  be  considered  under  this  framework.  They 
argued  that  this  change  would  also  provide  greater  flexibility  in  cooperating  with  third 
countries,  facilitating  the  establishment  of  new  partnerships.  They  also  contended  that,  by 
lifting  this  requirement,  Member  States  would  be  better  positioned  to  respond  to  migratory 
pressures and crises more effectively. They also pointed to potential efficiency gains, arguing 
that  eliminating  the  connection  criterion  would  streamline  application  processing,  reduce 
administrative  burdens  on  national  authorities  (as  there  will  be  no  burden  to  prove 
connection), and accelerate decision-making.  

Member  States  not  supporting  the  removal  of  the  requirement  of  the  connection  criterion 
warned the removal could hinder the integration of individuals in STCs and the establishment 
of partnerships with third countries, increase the risks of irregular migration back to the EU 
from the STC and of individuals being left without ties or guaranteed protection in the STC. 
In the EU, it may also raise the risk of court litigation, and of secondary movements towards 
Member  States  where  the  STC  concept  is  either  not  applied  or  applied  with  the  connection 
requirement.  Some  warned  that  national  courts  may  suspend  Dublin  transfers  to  Member 
States where they consider that the STC concept is applied too leniently or incorrectly, as the 
connection offered a safeguard. Some Member States further emphasised the need to ensure 
compliance  with  international  and  human  rights  law,  protect  vulnerable  applicants,  avoid 
shifting responsibility towards third countries, and ensure realistic implementation. 

Several Member States also noted that the application of the STC concept may increase the 
risk of absconding of applicants to whom the STC concept is applied. To address this risk, the 
majority of Member States considered that the rules provided for by the Reception Conditions 

13 
14 
15 

BG, EE, DE, EL, HU. 
AT, BE, CY, DK, FI, HR, IE, LV, LT, MT, NL, SE. 
CZ, PT, RO, SK, SI, ES. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
Directive,  such  as  Articles  9  (restrictions  on  freedom  of  movement)  and  10  (detention)  are 
sufficient, although a few Member States suggested to explore possible amendments and one 
proposed to include a recital.  

Consultations with Members of the European Parliament revealed important divergences of 
views  between  Members.  Some  Members  supported  deleting  the  connection  criterion  and 
removing  the  automatic  suspensive  effect  of  appeals,  arguing  that  these  changes  would 
improve efficiency and curb secondary movements. Other Members opposed both proposals, 
warning that the lack of a connection criterion could hinder integration in the third country, 
increase secondary movements, and leave individuals transferred to the third country without 
protection, while stressing the importance of safeguarding the individual’s right to asylum in 
the EU and of ensuring long-term sustainability of transfers. Additional concerns were raised 
about  the  risk  of  increased  court  litigation  and  potential  refoulement  risks  if  the  suspensive 
effect  of  appeals  were  removed.  It  was  also  argued  that  the  focus  should  remain  on 
implementing  the  Pact,  rather  than  introducing  changes  that  could  disrupt  its  carefully 
negotiated  balance.  Some  Members  noted  that  any  changes  to  the  STC  concept  must  be 
accompanied  by  strong  cooperation  arrangements  with  third  countries,  which  would  also 
guarantee that transferred persons have access to effective protection.  

Civil  society  organisations  were  generally  opposed  to  the  review  of  the  STC  concept  and 
highlighted  several  key  concerns  about  the  practical  implementation  of  the  STC  concept. 
They  cautioned  that  it  could  lead  to  increased  litigation,  judicial  interventions,  and 
administrative  burdens,  while  negatively  impacting  the  Dublin  system  and  cooperation  with 
third countries. The impact on vulnerable applicants was another key concern, with calls for 
the connection criterion to remain mandatory for this group. 

UNHCR,  while  acknowledging  that  the  connection  criterion  is  not  a  requirement  under 
international  law,  reiterated  its  reservations  about  its  removal,  including  concerns  about  the 
long-term  sustainability  of  the  transfers  in  the  absence  of  connection,  and  the  risk  that 
transferred  persons  may  remain  in  an  unclear  legal  situation  due  to  potential  subsequent 
rejections  of  protection  claims  also  in  the  STC.  UNHCR  emphasised  the  need  for  robust 
additional  safeguards  in  the  event  that  the  connection  criterion  was  removed.  UNHCR  also 
expressed some concerns relating to the STC concept but not directly linked to the proposals 
for revision.  

Regarding  the  suspensive  effect  of  appeals,  the  majority  of  Member  States  and  some 
Members  of  the  European  Parliament  supported  the  option  of  non-automatic  suspensive 
effect.  They  argued  that  the  removal  of  the  automatic  suspensive  effect  could  reduce 
procedural delays, noting that this would also be in line with the short duration of accelerated 
and  border  procedures  under  the  current  APR.  Additionally,  eliminating  the  automatic 
suspensive  effect  could  lower  financial  burdens  associated  with  providing  reception 
conditions  for  applicants  whose  protection  claims  are  under  examination.  They  also 
contended  that  this  measure  could  prevent  the  abuse  of  appeal  opportunities  by  applicants 
seeking to delay their removal and could help mitigate the risks of absconding and secondary 
movements. 

A  few  Member  States,  some  Members  of  the  European  Parliament,  UNHCR  and  the  civil 
society  organisations  expressed  concerns  about  the  removal  of  the  automatic  suspensive 
effect. In their view, such a change could substantially increase the workload of appeal courts 
and warned of potential  refoulement risks. UNHCR  considered  that removing  the  automatic 
suspensive  effect  could  increase  detention  risks  during  appeals,  and  that,  even  if  the  return 
decision  retains  a  suspensive  effect,  there  is  a  significant  risk  of  wrongful  transfer  of 

EN 

9 

  EN 

applicants at risk, as well as that, even where a removal measure is automatically suspended, 
this may not ensure an effective remedy against asylum rejections based on STC. 

• 

Evidence-based policy making 

Article 77 of the APR called for the Commission to  carry out  a review  of the STC concept 
and,  where  necessary,  propose  legislative  amendments  by  June  2025,  hence  before  the 
application of the APR in June 2026.  

In  reviewing  the  STC  concept,  the  Commission  took  into  account  the  experience  of  the 
Member States with its application so far, including the challenges encountered, as voiced in 
various  fora.  The  Commission  also  undertook  broad  stakeholder  consultation  activities  to 
gather evidence. Finally, the Commission analysed the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of 
Justice of the EU and of the European Court of Human Rights.  

• 

Fundamental rights 

This  proposal  respects  fundamental  rights  and  observes  the  principles  recognised,  in 
particular,  by  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union,  as  well  as  the 
obligations stemming from international law, in particular from the Geneva Convention on the 
Status  of  Refugees,  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and 
Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, the United 
Nations Convention against Torture, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the 
Child. 

The  proposal  is  consistent  with  Article  18  of  the  EU  Charter,  which  establishes  a  right  to 
asylum in the EU. The fact that an agreement or arrangement with a third country requires the 
examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection made by applicants subject 
to that agreement or arrangement ensures that the transferred person will receive protection in 
the  safe  third  country,  if  eligible.  The  proposal  is  also  consistent  with  Article  24  of  the  EU 
Charter, which establishes their right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-
being, and the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions relating to 
children.  Furthermore,  the  proposal  guarantees  that  each  individual  applicant  to  whom  the 
STC concept is applied in a Member State will benefit in full of all the procedural guarantees 
available  in  the  APR  in  the  context  of  inadmissibility  procedures  and  appeals  against 
inadmissibility  decisions,  which  are  in  turn  fully  aligned  with  Articles  3  and  Article  4  of 
Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR 
on those rights.  

The proposal is also consistent with the obligation to respect the principle of non-refoulement, 
which is safeguarded in the context of the APR, and will continue to be safeguarded under the 
new  rules  on  the  application  of  the  STC  concept.  Risks  of  refoulement  must  be  taken  into 
account in the context of examining the admissibility of the asylum application based on the 
STC  concept,  when  assessing  whether  a  third  country  is  ‘safe’  in  general,  and  for  each 
individual  in  particular.  The  proposal  establishes  that  the  effects  of  a  return  decision  that  is 
linked to the inadmissibility decision based on the application of the STC concept, issued as 
per Article 37 of the APR, shall be automatically suspended for as long as the applicant has a 
pending  appeal  where  s/he  has  claims  related  to  a  risk  of  refoulement.  The  proposal  for  a 
Return  Regulation  reaffirms  this  safeguard,  which  was  already  available  under  the  current 
Return Directive.  

The proposal also takes into account the special needs of unaccompanied  minors and aligns 
with  EU policies  aimed  at  protecting the rights  of the  children.  For  unaccompanied minors, 
the  application  of  the  STC  concept  based  on  the  existence  of  a  connection  or  transit 
complements the safeguards already established in the APR. When Member States apply the 

EN 

10 

  EN 

STC  concept  to  unaccompanied  minors,  the  APR  already  requires  an  individual  assessment 
based  on  the  best  interests  of  the  child.  In  the  context  of  the  STC  concept  this  assessment 
includes  verifying  whether  appropriate  arrangements  are  in  place  in  the  third  country  to 
protect  the  unaccompanied  minor  and  ensure  that  they  will  receive  support  tailored  to  their 
specific needs and immediate access to effective protection. Unaccompanied minors are in a 
particular situation of vulnerability and need specific support, which often can be provided by 
private actors in the host country. 

The right to an effective remedy is adequately ensured when lifting the automatic suspensive 
effect  of  the  appeal  against  the  inadmissibility  decision  based  on  the  STC  concept,  as 
applicants have the right to request in court the right to remain pending appeal.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

This  proposal  does  not  impose  any  financial  or  administrative  burden  on  the  Union. 
Therefore,  it  has  no  impact  on  the  Union  budget.  This  proposal  stems  from  the  Asylum 
Procedure Regulation (2024/1348) (‘APR’) that introduced several changes to the STC rules 
and  is  therefore  part  of  the  Pact  on  Migration  and  Asylum  adopted  in  May  2024  for  which 
funding  is  already  foreseen.  The  application  of  the  safe  third  country  (STC)  concept  is  not 
new for the Member States and the support to any investments needed for the application of 
the STC concept is eligible under the existing Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. The 
European Union Asylum Agency (EUAA) can support Member States with staff for the same 
purpose, within their respective mandates. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

Under Article 75 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, Member States are obliged to develop 
National Implementation Plans based on the Common Implementation Plan developed by the 
Commission.  The  Commission  must  closely  monitor  the  implementation  of  these  national 
plans.  Once  the  legislative  texts  under  the  Pact  start  applying  the  European  Union  Asylum 
Agency  will  monitor  the  operational  and  technical  application  of  the  Common  European 
Asylum System, pursuant to Article 14 of the EUAA Regulation 2021/2303. The application 
of the STC concept will be included in the monitoring conducted by the EUAA. Furthermore, 
the  annual  reports  that  the  Commission  must  adopt  under  Article  9  of  the  Asylum  and 
Migration Management Regulation must include the results of the EUAA’s monitoring.  

These  various  elements  must  be  taken  into  account  by  the  Commission  when  assessing 
whether  Member  States  are  under  migratory  pressure,  at  risk  of  such  pressure,  or  facing  a 
significant migratory situation. They are also  relevant when determining whether a Member 
State  has  systemic  shortcomings  that  could  lead  to  serious  negative  consequences  for  the 
functioning of the Dublin system.  

The transparency clause added in this proposal, which requires Member States to inform the 
Commission and other Member States prior to  concluding agreements or arrangements  with 
third  countries,  would  also  allow  the  Commission  to  have  a  complete  overview  on  the 
implementation of the STC concept.  

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Options for applying the STC concept  

EN 

11 

  EN 

The application of the connection criterion, which is not required under international law, will 
no longer be mandatory under EU law, which means that Member States will have the choice 
whether to apply it or not.  

When applying the STC concept, Member States will have three options: 

1)  to apply the STC where there is a connection, as defined in national law, in line with 

the parameters set by CJEU case law and international standards; or 

2)  to apply the STC concept by considering transit as a sufficient criterion; or 
3)  to  apply  the  STC  concept  on  the  basis  of  an  agreement  or  arrangement  with  a  third 
country requiring the examination of the merits of the requests for effective protection 
made  by  applicants  subject  to  that  agreement  or  arrangement.  This  will  not  apply  to 
unaccompanied minors. 

The requirement that, in the absence of connection or transit, the STC concept should only be 
applied  on  the  basis  of  an  agreement  or  arrangement  with  a  third  country  means  that 
applicants  would  be  able  to  have  access  to  a  procedure  in  safe  third  countries  and  receive 
effective  protection  if  justified,  without  prejudice  to  the  third  country  deciding  whether  the 
person satisfies the conditions for obtaining such protection.  

their  exposure 

The  existence  of  a  connection  or  of  previous  transit,  establishing  a  link  with  the  safe  third 
country,  will  be  mandatory  when  the  STC  is  applied  to  unaccompanied  minors.  This 
requirement  reduces 
isolation. 
Unaccompanied minors  are  in  a situation of vulnerability  and need  additional support when 
the STC concept is applied to them. This is acknowledged by the provisions of Article 59(6) 
of  the  APR,  requiring  that  a  third  country  may  only  be  considered  to  be  safe  for  an 
unaccompanied  minor  where  it  is  not  contrary  to  the  best  interests  of  the  child  and  where 
there are assurances that the third countries’ authorities will take charge of the unaccompanied 
minor and provide immediate support and access to effective protection. 

inadequate  protection  and  social 

to 

The Pact on Migration and Asylum establishes a more integrated common European system, 
in which decisions taken by one Member State impact on other Member States. The asylum 
and migration system of the Pact is based on trust and includes various instruments to ensure 
transparency  (e.g.,  monitoring  of  screening  and  border  procedure,  EUAA  monitoring 
mechanism)  that  should  also  apply  to  the  STC  concept.  For  this  reason,  the  proposal 
introduces  a  transparency  clause  requiring  Member  States  to  inform  the  Commission  and 
other  Member  States  prior  to  concluding  agreements  or  arrangements  with  safe  third 
countries. This would also help Member States and the Commission to better coordinate their 
efforts towards third countries for the conclusion of agreements or arrangements, and support 
the comprehensive approach in the external dimension of migration. The Commission would 
also  be  able  to  monitor  that  agreements  or  arrangements  with  third  countries  meet  the 
conditions set by the APR.  

Additionally,  to  limit  risks  associated  with  absconding  from  those  Member  States  applying 
the  STC  concept  to  other  Member  States  not  applying  it,  Member  States  should  be  able  to 
take  the  necessary  measures  to  prevent  unauthorised  movements  of  the  applicants  to  whom 
the  STC  concept  is  being  applied.  These  measures  can  include  restricting  freedom  of 
movement  pursuant  to  Article  9  of  Directive  (EU)  2024/1346,  or  detaining  the  applicant 
concerned in accordance with Article 10 thereof, pending the assessment of the admissibility 
of the application. In this regard, it may be possible to consider there is a risk of absconding 
when applying the concept. 

Non-automatic suspensive effect of the appeal against inadmissibility decisions taken on 
the STC ground 

EN 

12 

  EN 

To enhance procedural  efficiency, the Commission also  proposes making  non-automatic the 
suspensive  effect  of  appeals  against  inadmissibility  decisions,  without  prejudice  to  appeals 
against  related  return  decisions  where  there  is  a  risk  of  breaching  the  principle  of  non-
refoulement. To that end, the ground for inadmissibility checks based on the application of the 
STC concept is added to Article 68 paragraph 3, point b. 

EN 

13 

  EN 

2025/0132 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the ‘safe third 
country’ concept 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 78(2), point (d), thereof  

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Having regard to the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee, 

Having regard to the opinions of the Committee of the Regions, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

Regulation  (EU)  2024/1348  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council16 
established a common procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection 
in  the  Union.  The  Commission  has  reviewed  the  various  elements  of  the  concept  of 
safe  third  country,  including  criteria  of  safety,  due  process,  the  connection  criterion 
and  the  provisions  on  effective  remedy.  The  review  led  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
was  scope  for  improving  the  applicability  of  the  safe  third  country  concept  while 
preserving the legal safeguards for applicants and ensuring the respect of fundamental 
rights. 

The existence of a connection between the applicant and the safe third country is not 
required by international refugee law, notably the Geneva Convention, or international 
human  rights  law,  notably  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights.  Therefore, 
Member States should have the possibility to apply the concept of safe third country 
where  no  connection  can  be  established  between  the  applicant  and  the  safe  third 
country concerned, provided that an agreement or arrangement with the third country 
concerned  requires  the  examination  of  the  merits  of  requests  for  effective  protection 
made by applicants subject to that agreement or arrangement. 

(3)  Member States should have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept on 
the  basis  of  a  connection  between  the  applicant  and  the  third  country  concerned,  by 
which it would be reasonable for the applicant to go to that third country. 

(4)  Member States should also have the possibility to apply the safe third country concept 
to applicants who transited through the territory of a third country before entering the 

16 

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 (OJ 
L, 2024/1348, 22.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1348/oj). 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
(5) 

(6) 

Union, as it is reasonable to expect that a person seeking international protection could 
have applied for protection in a safe third country through which that person transited. 
Previous  transit  through  a  safe  third  country  provides  an  objective  link  between  the 
applicant and the third country concerned. 

In view of the situation of vulnerability of unaccompanied minors and of the need for 
targeted support, the concept of safe third country should be applied to unaccompanied 
minors  only  where  a  connection  or  transit  can  be  established  with  the  third  country 
concerned  can be established and the conditions  of Article 59(6) of Regulation (EU) 
2024/1348 of the European Parliament and of the Council are fulfilled. Member States 
should  ensure  that  the  best  interests  of  the  child  are  a  primary  consideration  in  all 
decisions concerning minors. 

It is necessary to enhance transparency regarding the conclusion by Member States of 
agreements and arrangements with safe third countries, to support Member States and 
the Commission in establishing a comprehensive approach on the external dimension 
of migration, and in coordinating their efforts towards third countries for applying the 
safe third country concept. This would also allow for monitoring whether agreements 
or  arrangements  with  third  countries  fulfil  the  conditions  set  by  this  Regulation.  It 
should also enable a more consistent and coherent application of the safe third country 
concept  across  the  Union  and  contribute  to  the  overall  well-functioning  of  the 
Common European Asylum System. To this end, Member States should be required to 
inform  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States  prior  to  the  conclusion  of 
agreements or arrangements with third countries.  

(7)  Member States should be able to take the necessary measures to address the risk that 
applicants to whom the safe third country concept is being applied abscond, including 
by restricting freedom of movement pursuant to Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346 
of the European Parliament and of the Council17, or detaining the applicant concerned 
in  accordance  with  Article  10  thereof,  in  order  to  assess  the  admissibility  of 
applications. 

(8) 

(9) 

To enhance procedural efficiency, the applicant should not have an automatic right to 
remain  on  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  for  the  purpose  of  an  appeal  against 
inadmissibility  decisions  taken  on  the  basis  of  the  safe  third  country  concept. 
Nonetheless, the enforcement of the corresponding return decision is to be suspended 
during the time limit within which the person concerned can exercise his or her right 
to an effective remedy before a court of first instance and when such appeal is lodged 
where there is a risk of breach of the principle of non-refoulement. 

Since  the  objective  of  this  Regulation,  namely  the  revision  of  the  conditions  for  the 
application  of  the  safe  third  country  concept,  cannot  be  sufficiently  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 of the 
Treaty on European Union (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 that objective. 

17 

Directive (EU) 2024/1346 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 laying down 
standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L, 2024/1346, 22.5.2024 , ELI: 
http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1346/oj). 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
(10) 

[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 Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European  Union,  Ireland  has  notified  [,  by  letter  of  …,]  its  wish  to  take  part  in  the 
adoption and application of this [act.]  

OR  

[In accordance with Articles 1, 2 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 Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, Ireland is 
not  taking  part  in  the  adoption  of  this  [act]  and  is  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its 
application.] 

(11) 

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

(12)  This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 

in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

Article 59(5) is amended as follows: 

Article 1 

(a) 

point (b) is replaced by the following:  

‘(b) one of the following conditions is met: 

i) 

ii) 
iii) 

there  is  a  connection  between  the  applicant  and  the  third  country 
concerned, on the basis of which it would be reasonable for him or her 
to go to that country; 
the applicant has transited through the third country concerned; 
there  is  an  agreement  or  an  arrangement  with  the  third  country 
concerned  requiring  the  examination  of  the  merits  of  the  requests  for 
effective  protection  made  by  applicants  subject  to  that  agreement  or 
arrangement.’  

(b) 

the following two subparagraphs are added: 

‘In  the  application  of  the  first  paragraph,  point  (b),  the  best  interests  of  the 
child shall be a primary consideration. The first paragraph, point (b)(iii), shall 
not apply where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor.  

Member  States  shall  inform  the  Commission  and  the  other  Member  States 
prior  to  concluding  an  agreement  or  arrangement  as  referred  to  in  the  first 
paragraph, point (b)(iii).’ 

(2) 

In Article 68 (3), point (b) is replaced by the following: 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
‘(b) a decision which rejects an application as inadmissible pursuant to Article 
38(1), point (a), (b), (d) or (e), or Article 38(2), except where the applicant is 
an unaccompanied minor subject to the border procedure.’ 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the    day  following  that  of  its  publication  in  the 
Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 2 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in 
accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

for the Council 
The President 

EN 

17 

  EN 

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL AND DIGITAL STATEMENT 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ................................................. 3 

Title of the proposal/initiative ...................................................................................... 3 

Policy area(s) concerned .............................................................................................. 3 

Objective(s) .................................................................................................................. 3 

1.3.1.  General objective(s) ..................................................................................................... 3 

1.3.2.  Specific objective(s) ..................................................................................................... 3 

1.3.3.  Expected result(s) and impact ...................................................................................... 3 

1.3.4. 

Indicators of performance ............................................................................................ 3 

1.4. 

1.5. 

The proposal/initiative relates to: ................................................................................. 4 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative .............................................................................. 4 

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long-term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative ............................................................ 4 

1.5.2.  Added value of EU involvement (it may result from different factors, e.g. 

coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this section 'added value of EU involvement' is the value resulting 
from EU action, that is additional to the value that would have been otherwise 
created by Member States alone. ................................................................................. 4 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past .................................................. 4 

1.5.4.  Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with 
other appropriate instruments ....................................................................................... 5 

1.5.5.  Assessment of the different available financing options, including scope for 

redeployment ................................................................................................................ 5 

1.6. 

1.7. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact .................................... 6 

Method(s) of budget implementation planned ............................................................. 6 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................................................................... 8 

Monitoring and reporting rules .................................................................................... 8 

Management and control system(s) ............................................................................. 8 

Justification of the budget implementation method(s), the funding implementation 
mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed .................. 8 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them............................................................................................................ 8 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio between 
the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the 
expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure) ........................................... 8 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities ................................................................ 9 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE ............ 10 

Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) 
affected ....................................................................................................................... 10 

EN 

1 

  EN 

3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations ................................... 12 

3.2.1.  Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations.................................... 12 

3.2.1.1.  Appropriations from voted budget ............................................................................. 12 

3.2.1.2.  Appropriations from external assigned revenues ....................................................... 17 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded from operational appropriations......................................... 22 

3.2.3.  Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations ............................... 24 

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget .............................................................................. 24 

3.2.3.2.  Appropriations from external assigned revenues ....................................................... 24 

3.2.3.3.  Total appropriations ................................................................................................... 24 

3.2.4.  Estimated requirements of human resources.............................................................. 25 

3.2.4.1.  Financed from voted budget....................................................................................... 25 

3.2.4.2.  Financed from external assigned revenues ................................................................ 26 

3.2.4.3.  Total requirements of human resources ..................................................................... 26 

3.2.5.  Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments ................ 28 

3.2.6.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework.............................. 28 

3.2.7.  Third-party contributions ........................................................................................... 28 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

Estimated impact on revenue ..................................................................................... 29 

DIGITAL DIMENSIONS .......................................................................................... 29 

Requirements of digital relevance .............................................................................. 30 

Data ............................................................................................................................ 30 

Digital solutions ......................................................................................................... 31 

Interoperability assessment ........................................................................................ 31 

Measures to support digital implementation .............................................................. 32 

EN 

2 

  EN 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 
Regulation  (EU)  2024/1348  as  regards  the  application  of  the  ‘safe  third  country’ 
concept.  

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned  

Asylum 

1.3. 

Objective(s) 

1.3.1.  General objective(s) 

This  proposal  responds  to  the  requirement  of  the  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation 
2024/1348  for  the  Commission  to  review  the  STC  concept  and,  where  appropriate, 
propose  targeted  amendments  to  facilitate  its  application.  It  aims  to  enhance  the 
application of the STC concept in the EU asylum framework.  

In line with the Pact on Migration and Asylum, this proposal reinforces partnership-
based  cooperation  with  third  countries,  ensuring  that  STC  agreements  and 
arrangements  are  mutually  beneficial,  uphold  responsibility-sharing  principles,  and 
fully  respect  fundamental  rights.  By  addressing  protection  needs  and  ensuring 
compliance with international obligations, the proposal also contributes to the EU’s 
commitments under the Global Refugee Compact. 

1.3.2. 

Specific objective(s) 

Specific objective No 1 

The  first  objective  of  this  proposal  is  to  make  targeted  amendments  to  the  Asylum 
Procedure  Regulation  2024/1348  so  as  to  facilitate  the  application  of  the  STC 
concept by Member States.  

1.3.3.  Expected result(s) and impact 

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted. 

1. 

Improve legal clarity and consistency in applying the STC concept.  

Provide  Member  States  with  more  flexibility  in  applying  the  concept,  while 

2. 
ensuring compliance with international obligations and fundamental rights.  

Enhance  the  efficiency  of  asylum  procedures  and  reduce  pressure  on  and 

3. 
abuses of EU asylum systems. 

1.3.4. 

Indicators of performance 

Specify the indicators for monitoring progress and achievements. 

Impact of the amendments on the following: 

1. 

2. 

Number  of  Member  States  using  the  STC  concept  (using  the  connection 
criterion,  the  transit  criterion  or  based  on  agreement  or  arrangements  with 
STCs). 

Number of asylum claims rejected as inadmissible based on STC grounds and 
number of appeals.  

EN 

3 

  EN 

3. 

Number of STC agreements or arrangements at Union or Member State level. 

1.4. 

The proposal/initiative relates to:  

 a new action  
 a new action following a pilot project / preparatory action18  

 the extension of an existing action  

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action 

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative 

Under Article 75 of the Asylum Procedure Regulation, Member States are  required 
to  develop  National  Implementation  Plans  based  on  the  Common  Implementation 
Plan  developed  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  has  to  closely  monitor  the 
implementation of the national implementation plans. Once the provisions of the Pact 
start  applying  in  June  2026,  the  European  Union  Asylum  Agency  will  monitor  the 
operational  and  technical  application  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System 
pursuant  to  Article  14  of  the  EUAA  Regulation  2021/2303.  The  application  of  the 
STC  concept  will  be  part  of  the  monitoring  by  EUAA.  Furthermore,  the  annual 
reports  that  the  Commission  must  adopt  pursuant  to  Article  9  of  the  Asylum  and 
Migration Management Regulation must include the results of the monitoring of the 
EUAA.  These  various  elements  have  to  be  taken  into  account  by  the  Commission 
when assessing whether Member States are under migratory pressure, at risk thereof, 
or  facing  a  significant  migratory  situation,  as  well  as  when  determining  whether  a 
Member  State  has  systemic  shortcomings  that  could  result  in  serious  negative 
consequences for the functioning of the Dublin system.  

1.5.2.  Added  value  of  EU  involvement  (it  may  result  from  different  factors,  e.g. 
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the  purposes  of  this  section  'added  value  of  EU  involvement'  is  the  value  resulting 
from  EU  action,  that  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  been  otherwise 
created by Member States alone. 

Reasons for action at EU level (ex-ante): the STC concept and asylum procedure are 
governed  by  EU  law  under  the  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1348. 
Without EU-level action, Member States would continue to apply the STC concept in 
a  fragmented  manner,  leading  to  inconsistencies  in  legal  interpretation  and 
procedural safeguards. Diverging national approaches would create legal uncertainty, 
increase  litigation  risks,  and  undermine  the  uniform  application  of  asylum  rules 
across the Union. A lack of coordinated action would also hinder fair burden-sharing 
among Member States and weaken the EU’s ability to engage effectively with third 
countries  on  migration  matters.  By  acting  at  the  EU  level,  this  proposal  ensures 
harmonisation,  legal  certainty,  and  procedural  safeguards,  while  providing  Member 
States with greater flexibility to implement the STC concept in a legally sound and 
operationally effective manner. 

18 

As referred to in Article 58(2), point (a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

 
Expected generated EU added value (ex-post): once implemented, this proposal will 
enhance legal certainty and procedural efficiency by ensuring that all Member States 
apply the STC concept consistently. The removal of the automatic suspensive effect 
of appeals will reduce delays in asylum decision-making, enabling faster processing 
of inadmissible claims, while maintaining access to effective legal remedies.  

The  proposal  will  also  strengthen  cooperation  with  third  countries  by  providing  a 
clear  legal  framework  for  STC  application,  whether  or  not  a  connection  exists, 
provided 
the 
transparency  clause  will  enable  the  Commission  to  monitor  the  compliance  of 
agreements or arrangements with the APR, safeguarding EU credibility in migration 
partnerships. 

that  agreements  or  arrangements  are 

in  place.  Furthermore, 

At  the  EU  level,  monitoring  by  the  EUAA  and  the  Commission  will  ensure  that 
Member  States  apply  the  revised  STC  rules  in  full  compliance  with  fundamental 
rights and procedural safeguards. While the proposal limits the automatic suspensive 
effect  of  appeals,  it  maintains  essential  legal  protections  by  requiring  that  return 
decisions be suspended at the first level of appeal when there is a risk to breach the 
principle  of  non-refoulement.  These  measures  strike  a  balance  between  efficiency 
and fairness, ensuring that the EU asylum system remains effective, predictable, and 
aligned with international human rights obligations. 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

Application of the STC concept varies amongst Member States and is not applied by 
all,  making  comparisons  difficult.  The  Commission  adopted  a  holistic  approach  in 
reviewing  the  STC  concept.  They  examined  whether  international  law  (the  1951 
Geneva Convention and the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights) allows for 
further  revisions  to  the  conditions  for  applying  the  STC  concept  and  its  legal 
safeguards, with the aim of facilitating the application of the concept in the Member 
States. The Commission also considered Member States’ experiences and challenges 
in  applying  the  STC  concept,  as  voiced  in  different  fora,  and  assessed  whether  the 
changes  introduced  under  the  APR  had  already  addressed  these  issues  or  if  gaps 
remained.  Finally,  the  Commission  analysed  relevant  jurisprudence  of  the  Court  of 
Justice of the EU and of the European Court of Human Rights. 

1.5.4.  Compatibility with the multiannual financial framework and possible synergies with 

other appropriate instruments 

This proposal stems from the APR that introduced several changes to the STC rules 
and is therefore part of the Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in May 2024 for 
which  funding  is  already  foreseen.  This  proposal  does  not  impose  any  financial  or 
administrative burden on the Union. Therefore, it has no impact on the Union budget. 
The  application  of  the  STC  concept  is  not  new  for  the  Member  States.  Member 
States  will  be  able  to  make  use  of  the  funds  allocated  under  their  national 
programmes  under  both  the  existing  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  to 
support any investments needed for the application of the STC concept. The EUAA 
can support Member States with  staff  for the same purpose,  within their respective 
mandates. 

1.5.5.  Assessment  of  the  different  available  financing  options,  including  scope  for 

redeployment 

Not applicable. 

EN 

5 

  EN 

1.6. 

Duration of the proposal/initiative and of its financial impact 

 limited duration  

–    in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY  

–    financial  impact  from  YYYY  to  YYYY  for  commitment  appropriations  and 

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.  

 unlimited duration 

–  Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY to YYYY, 

–  followed by full-scale operation. 

1.7.  Method(s) of budget implementation planned19  

 Direct management by the Commission 

–   by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;  

–    by the executive agencies  

 Shared management with the Member States  

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

–   third countries or the bodies they have designated 

–   international organisations and their agencies (to be specified) 

–   the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund 

–   bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation 

–   public law bodies 

–   bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that 

they are provided with adequate financial guarantees 

–   bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with 
the  implementation  of  a  public-private  partnership  and  that  are  provided  with 
adequate financial guarantees 

–   bodies or persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the 
common  foreign  and  security  policy  pursuant  to  Title  V  of  the  Treaty  on 
European Union, and identified in the relevant basic act 

–   bodies  established  in  a  Member  State,  governed  by  the  private  law  of  a 
Member  State  or  Union  law  and  eligible  to  be  entrusted,  in  accordance  with 
sector-specific  rules,  with  the  implementation  of  Union  funds  or  budgetary 
guarantees,  to  the extent that such bodies are controlled by public law bodies or 
by bodies governed by private law with a public service mission, and are provided 
with adequate financial guarantees in the form of joint and several liability by the 
controlling bodies or equivalent financial guarantees and which may be, for each 
action, limited to the maximum amount of the Union support. 

19 

Details of budget implementation methods and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on 
the BUDGpedia site: https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/corp/budget/financial-rules/budget-
implementation/Pages/implementation-methods.aspx. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

 
2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  

Under  Article  75  of  the  Asylum  Procedure  Regulation  (EU)  2024/1348,  Member 
States  must  develop  National  Implementation  Plans  based  on  the  Common 
Implementation  Plan  set  by  the  Commission,  which  will  closely  monitor  their 
implementation.  Once  the  provisions  of  the  Pact  start  applying  in  June  2026,  the 
EUAA  will  oversee  the  operational  and  technical  application  of  the  Common 
European  Asylum  System  under  Article  14  of  the  EUAA  Regulation  (EU) 
2021/2303, including the implementation of the STC concept. 

The  Commission’s  annual  reports  under  Article  9  of  the  Asylum  and  Migration 
Management Regulation will include EUAA’s monitoring results, assessing whether 
Member  States  are  under  migratory  pressure  or  facing  systemic  shortcomings  that 
could affect the functioning of the Dublin system, including linked to the application 
of  the  STC  concept.  The  added  transparency  clause  will  allow  the  Commission  to 
monitor  agreements  and  arrangements  with  third  countries  in  light  of  the  APR 
requirements. 

2.2.  Management and control system(s)  

2.2.1. 

Justification  of  the  budget  implementation  method(s),  the  funding  implementation 
mechanism(s), the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed 

Not applicable. 

2.2.2. 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them 

One  of  the  risks  associated  with  the  proposal  is  that  Member  States  may  establish 
agreements  or  arrangements  with  third  countries  that  do  not  meet  the  necessary 
standards. To mitigate this risk, a transparency clause has been introduced, according 
to  which  Member  States  need  to  inform  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States 
prior to the conclusion of agreements or arrangements.  

2.2.3.  Estimation  and  justification  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  controls  (ratio  between 
the control costs and the value of the related funds managed), and assessment of the 
expected levels of risk of error (at payment & at closure)  

Not applicable 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

Not applicable 

EN 

7 

  EN 

3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected  

Section 3 not applicable as no financial or staff implications.  

EN 

8 

  EN 

3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations  

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below 

3.2.1.1.  Appropriations from voted budget 

Heading of multiannual financial framework  

Number 

TOTAL 

operational 

appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed 
from the envelope for specific programmes  

TOTAL appropriations under 
HEADING <….> 

Commitments 

of the multiannual financial framework 

Payments 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

=4+6 

=5+6 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Heading of multiannual financial framework  

7 

‘Administrative expenditure’20 

DG: <…….> 

 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL 
MFF 2021-
2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

20 

The necessary appropriations should be determined using the annual average cost figures available on the appropriate BUDGpedia webpage. 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
TOTAL DG <…….> 

Appropriations  

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

DG: <…….> 

 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  
TOTAL DG <…….> 

Appropriations  

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL 
MFF 2021-
2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 7 of the multiannual financial 
framework  

(Total 
commitments 
= Total 
payments) 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 7 

Commitments 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

of the multiannual financial framework  

Payments 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

3.2.1.2.  Appropriations from external assigned revenues 

Heading of multiannual financial framework  

Number 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

DG: <…….> 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

Operational appropriations  
Budget line 

Commitments 

(1a) 

0.000 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
Budget line 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

(2a) 

(1b) 

(2b) 

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope of specific programmes21 
Budget line 

(3) 

TOTAL appropriations 
for DG <…….> 

Commitments 

Payments 

=1a+1b+3 

=2a+2b+3 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Mandatory table: 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL 

operational 

appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed 
from the envelope for specific programmes  

TOTAL appropriations under 
HEADING <….> 

Commitments 

of the multiannual financial framework 

Payments 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

=4+6 

=5+6 

Mandatory table 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

TOTAL 

operational 

appropriations  

Commitments 

(4) 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

21 

Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
Payments 

TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed 
from the envelope for specific programmes  

TOTAL appropriations under 
HEADING <….> 

Commitments 

of the multiannual financial framework 

Payments 

(5) 

(6) 

=4+6 

=5+6 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

•  TOTAL  operational  appropriations 
operational headings) 

(all 

Commitments 

Payments 

•  TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed 
from  the  envelope  for  specific  programmes  (all  operational 
headings) 

TOTAL appropriations under Headings 1 
to 6 

Commitments 

of the multiannual financial framework (Reference 
amount) 

Payments 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

=4+6 

=5+6 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Heading of multiannual financial framework  

7 

‘Administrative expenditure’22 

DG: <…….> 

Year 

Year 

Year 

Year 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

22 

The necessary appropriations should be determined using the annual average cost figures available on the appropriate BUDGpedia webpage. 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

TOTAL DG <…….> 

Appropriations  

DG: <…….> 

 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

TOTAL DG <…….> 

Appropriations  

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

MFF 2021-
2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL 
MFF 2021-
2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 7 of the multiannual 
financial framework  

(Total 
commitments 
= Total 
payments) 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL MFF 
2021-2027 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 7 

Commitments 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

of the multiannual financial framework  

Payments 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded from operational appropriations (not to be completed for decentralised agencies) 

Indicate 
objectives and 
outputs  

Year  
2024 

Year  
2025 

Year  
2026 

Year  
2027 

OUTPUTS 

13 

EN 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Enter as many years as necessary to show the 
duration of the impact (see Section1.6) 

TOTAL 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

o
N

Cost  N

o

Cost 

o
N

Cost 

Total 
No 

Total 
cost 

 

Type23 

Avera
ge 
cost 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 124… 

- Output 

- Output 

- Output 

Subtotal for specific objective No 1 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2 ... 

- Output 

Subtotal for specific objective No 2 

TOTALS 

23 
24 

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g. number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 
As described in Section 1.3.2. ‘Specific objective(s)’  

EN 

14 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3. 

Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations  

–    The  proposal/initiative  does  not  require  the  use  of  appropriations  of  an 

administrative nature  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative 

nature, as explained below 

3.2.3.1. Appropriations from voted budget 

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

TOTAL 
2021 - 2027 

HEADING 7 

Human resources  

Other administrative expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 7 

Outside HEADING 7 

Human resources  

Other expenditure of an administrative nature 

Subtotal outside HEADING 7 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

3.2.3.3.  Total appropriations 

TOTAL 

Year 

Year 

Year 

Year 

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS              +                                
EXTERNAL ASSIGNED REVENUES 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

TOTAL 
2021 - 
2027 

HEADING 7 

Human resources  

Other administrative expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 7 

Outside HEADING 7 

Human resources  

Other expenditure of an administrative nature 

Subtotal outside HEADING 7 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

The  appropriations  required  for  human  resources  and  other  expenditure  of  an  administrative  nature 
will  be  met  by  appropriations  from  the  DG  that  are  already  assigned  to  management  of  the  action 
and/or  have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG,  together,  if  necessary,  with  any  additional  allocation 
which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of 
budgetary constraints. 

3.2.4.  Estimated requirements of human resources  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources  

–    The  proposal/initiative  requires  the  use  of  human  resources,  as  explained 

below 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
  
  
3.2.4.1.  Financed from voted budget 

Estimate to be expressed in full-time equivalent units (FTEs)25 

VOTED APPROPRIATIONS 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 

01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

• External staff (inFTEs) 

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’) 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations) 

Admin. Support 
line 
[XX.01.YY.YY] 

- at Headquarters 

- in EU Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END - Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 12 (AC, END - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 7 

Other budget lines (specify) - Outside Heading 7 

TOTAL 

3.2.4.2.  Financed from external assigned revenues 

EXTERNAL ASSIGNED REVENUES 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 

01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

• External staff (in full time equivalent units) 

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’) 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations) 

Admin. Support 
line  
[XX.01.YY.YY] 

- at Headquarters 

- in EU Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END - Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 12 (AC, END - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 7 

Other budget lines (specify) - Outside Heading 7 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Year 

2024 

Year 

2025 

Year 

2026 

Year 

2027 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25 

Please specify below the table how many FTEs within the number indicated are already assigned to the 
management of the action and/or can be redeployed within your DG and what are your net needs. 

EN 

16 

  EN 

 
 
 
3.2.4.3.  Total requirements of human resources 

Year 
TOTAL VOTED APPROPRIATIONS                          +                                                

Year 

Year 

Year 

EXTERNAL ASSIGNED REVENUES 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 

20 01 02 03 (EU Delegations) 

01 01 01 01 (Indirect research) 

01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

• External staff (in full time equivalent units) 

20 02 01 (AC, END from the ‘global envelope’) 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END and JPD in the EU Delegations) 

Admin. Support 
line  
[XX.01.YY.YY] 

- at Headquarters 

- in EU Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END - Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 12 (AC, END - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) - Heading 7 

Other budget lines (specify) - Outside Heading 7 

TOTAL 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

[Considering  the  overall  strained  situation  in  Heading  7,  in  terms  of  both  staffing  and  the  level  of 
appropriations,  the  human  resources  required  will  be  met  by  staff  from  the  DG  who  are  already 
assigned  to  the  management  of  the  action  and/or  have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG  or  other 
Commission services.] 

Description of tasks to be carried out by: 

Officials and temporary staff 

External staff 

3.2.5.  Overview of estimated impact on digital technology-related investments 

Compulsory: the best estimate of the digital technology-related investments entailed 
by the proposal/initiative should be included in the table below.  

Exceptionally,  when  required  for  the  implementation  of  the  proposal/initiative,  the 
appropriations under Heading 7 should be presented in the designated line.  

The appropriations under Headings 1-6 should be reflected as “Policy IT expenditure 
on operational programmes”. This expenditure refers to the operational budget to be 
used to re-use/ buy/ develop IT platforms/ tools directly linked to the implementation 
of the initiative and their associated investments (e.g. licences, studies, data storage 
etc).  The  information  provided  in  this  table  should  be  consistent  with  details 
presented under Section 4 “Digital dimensions”. 

TOTAL Digital and IT appropriations 

Year 

Year 

Year 

Year 

TOTAL 
MFF 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
 
 
HEADING 7 

IT expenditure (corporate)  

Subtotal HEADING 7 

Outside HEADING 7 

Policy IT expenditure on operational 
programmes 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

2021 - 
2027 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

Subtotal outside HEADING 7 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

TOTAL 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

3.2.6.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the 

multiannual financial framework (MFF) 

Not applicable. 

–    requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF 

and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation 

Not applicable. 

–    requires a revision of the MFF 

Not applicable. 

3.2.7.  Third-party contributions  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    does not provide for co-financing by third parties 

–    provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below: 

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year  
2024 

Year  
2025 

Year  
2026 

Year  
2027 

Total 

Specify the co-financing body  

TOTAL appropriations co-
financed  

3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue  

–    The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue. 

–    The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

– 

– 

– 

 

 

on own resources  

on other revenue 

  please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines 

   EUR million (to three decimal places) 

EN 

18 

  EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Budget revenue line: 

Article …………. 

Appropriations 
available for the 
current financial 
year 

Impact of the proposal/initiative26 

Year 2024 

Year 2025  Year 2026 

Year 2027 

For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected. 

Not applicable 

Other  remarks  (e.g.  method/formula  used  for  calculating  the  impact  on  revenue  or 
any other information). 

Not applicable 

4. 

DIGITAL DIMENSIONS 

Not applicable. The proposal is a targeted amendment to the APR which is part of the Pact. 
All the digital elements are in the pact not here.  

4.1. 

Requirements of digital relevance 

Not applicable 

4.2. 

Data 

Not applicable 

4.3. 

Digital solutions 

Not applicable 

4.4. 

Interoperability assessment 

Not applicable 

4.5.  Measures to support digital implementation 

Not applicable 

26 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net 
amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 20% for collection costs. 

EN 

19 

  EN