For the purpose of this paper, the notion of ‘safe country of origin’ refers to countries of origin that are presumed to be safe for returning asylum seekers, i.e. where an asylum seeker who is a national of such a country is presumed not to be in need of protection.

Several countries throughout Europe apply the concept of ‘safe country of origin’ within their asylum systems. In some countries, such as Germany, Switzerland and the UK, application of the concept is regulated by domestic legislation that includes a prescribed list of safe countries of origin. In other countries, such as Denmark, Hungary and The Netherlands, the authorities operate an informal policy for applicants from countries that they deem to be safe. It is not uncommon for asylum applications from asylum seekers originating from such ‘safe’ countries to be considered manifestly unfounded. Moreover, asylum applications from claimants originating from countries labelled as safe are generally processed through accelerated asylum procedures.

2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT

The concept of ‘safe country of origin’ started life as a result of the concerns of certain countries over increases in the number of asylum applications. Belgium, for example, introduced a new asylum procedure in 1991, following an increased number of asylum seekers in 1990. This new procedure included a paragraph stating that an asylum application may be considered inadmissible if it comes from an asylum seeker originating from a country in which during the preceding year more than 5 % of asylum seekers originated, and less than 5 % were recognised as in need of protection.[1] The concept was also introduced in The Netherlands in the same year.[2]

In 1992, Austria introduced a new accelerated procedure that also included a regulation involving safe countries of origin. The measure stipulated that an asylum application may be considered as manifestly unfounded if it comes from an asylum seeker who is a national or a permanent resident of a country in which s/he can be, from general knowledge, legal order and actual practice, assumed to be safe from persecution for one of the reasons mentioned in the 1951 Convention.[3] Amendments to German law in 1992 also contained a stipulation that authorised the Parliament to assign safe countries of origin on the basis of the general legal and political situation, and the actual practice in each country.[4]

The concept was further developed and codified when the immigration Ministers of the EC member states introduced at a European level in 1992 the so-called London Resolutions.[5] Combined, the Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum, and the Conclusion on Countries in Which There is Generally No Serious Risk of Persecution, provided the member states with principles for handling applications from asylum seekers generally not considered to require protection. The principles were devised to help release “overloaded asylum determination procedures” that “delay the recognition of refugees in genuine need of protection” and “jeopardize the integrity of the institution of asylum.”[6]

The Conclusion refers to “a country which can be clearly shown, in an objective and verifiable way, normally not to generate refugees or where it can be clearly shown, in an objective and verifiable way, that circumstances which might in the past have justified recourse to the 1951 Geneva Convention have ceased to exist.”[7] Furthermore, when making an assessment, the following elements should, according to the Conclusion, be taken into consideration:

a) Previous numbers of refugees and recognition rates, as “in the absence of any significant change in the country it is reasonable to assume that low recognition rates continue and that the country tends not to produce refugees”.

b) Observance of human rights, taking into consideration formal obligations taken on by a country, and more importantly how the country in practice meets those obligations.

c) Democratic institutions, referring to democratic processes and elections, political pluralism and freedom of thought and expression, including legal ways of protection and remedy.

d) Stability, confirming that an “assessment must be made of the prospect for dramatic change in the immediate future”.[8]

The ‘London Resolutions and Conclusions’ are politically but not legally binding instruments.

It is also instructive to note that when agreeing the Resolutions and Conclusions, the EC immigration Ministers clearly stated that “an assessment by an individual Member State of a country as one in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution should not automatically result in the refusal of all asylum applications from its nationals or their exclusion from individualized determination procedures. A Member State may choose to use such an assessment in channelling cases into accelerated procedures.”[9] Although no agreement on a common European procedure for determining safe countries of origin could be reached at the time, the idea of such a procedure was not rejected.[10]

3. EU Developments

The adoption of the Amsterdam treaty by the EU member states in 1997 established that further EU-wide binding minimum rules on asylum and immigration should be developed. Following the Amsterdam Treaty, which came into force in 1999, EU heads of state or Government adopted the political guidelines constituting the framework in which the EU’s policies and legislation on asylum and immigration was to be developed. Title IV of the Amsterdam treaty on visas, asylum, immigration and other policies relating to the free movement of persons, established a number of objectives, among which an asylum procedure Directive is to be adopted.[11] The main purpose of the Directive will be “to introduce a minimum framework in the European Community on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status…The approximation of rules…should help to limit the secondary movements of applicants for asylum between Member States, where such movement would be caused by differences in legal framework.”[12]

During negotiation of the Directive on 2 and 3 October 2003, the European Council decided to attach to the Directive a minimum common list of safe countries of origin, which would be legally binding on all member states. The list was to be adopted simultaneously with the Directive.[13] However, negotiations on which countries were considered safe proved difficult due to conflicting and scarce information about countries of origin, as well as varying national, political and foreign policy considerations. As a result, unanimous agreement on a safe list could not be reached. To avoid further delays in the adoption of the Directive, it was decided to de-link the common list from the Directive, and an agreement on a minimum common list of safe countries of origin has been postponed until after its adoption, which will take place following re-consultation with the European Parliament.[14]

Article 30 of the draft Directive lays down the pre-requisites for establishing the common list of safe countries of origin. It states that the European Council will adopt a list of countries “that shall be regarded by Member States as safe countries of origin in accordance with Annex II.”[15] According to the annex, “a country is considered as a safe country of origin where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of the Qualification Directive;[16] no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts”.[17] In addition, the extent of protection against persecution and mistreatment will be taken into account through the following sources:

a) “The relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which they are applied;

b) Observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and/or the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and/or the Convention against Torture, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European Convention;

c) Respect of the non-refoulement principle according to the Geneva Convention;

d) Provision for a system of effective remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms.”[18]

Article 30A of the draft Directive stipulates that member states may keep or introduce legislation that allows for national designation of safe countries other than those on the common list, provided that such legislation is in accordance with Annex II. Member states may also retain such legislation already in force at the time of the adoption of the Directive which is not in accordance with Annex II, provided that persons in the designated safe countries are neither subject to “persecution as defined in Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC; nor torture or inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment.”[19] The draft Directive stipulates also that member states should take into consideration “the legal situation, the application of the law and the general political circumstances in the third country concerned”[20], and that decisions should be “based on a range of sources from other Member States, the UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other relevant international organisations.”[21]

The draft Directive underlines that the designation of a safe country “cannot establish an absolute guarantee of safety for the nationals of that country…For this reason, it is important that, where an applicant shows that there are serious reasons to consider the country not to be safe in his/her particular circumstances, the designation of the country as safe no longer can be considered relevant for him/her.”[22] However, where the European Council has satisfied itself that the relevant criteria “are met in relation to a particular country of origin, and has consequently included it in the minimum common list of safe countries of origin…Member states should be obliged to consider applications from persons with the nationality of that country, or of stateless persons formerly habitually resident in that country, on the basis of the rebuttable presumption of the safety of that country.”[23] If an asylum seeker is unable to rebut the presumption of safety of a designated safe country, the member state will “consider the application for asylum as unfounded.”[24]

4. UNHCR’S POSITION

UNHCR underlines that in order not to breach the non-discrimination basis of the 1951 Convention, the concept of ‘safe country of origin’ cannot be used as an automatic bar to accessing asylum procedures. Also, the asylum seeker should have an actual chance to rebut the general presumption that s/he is not in need of protection.[25] However, UNHCR still accepts the notion of ‘safe country of origin’ as long as it “is used only as a procedural tool to assign certain applications to accelerated procedures such as procedures for ‘manifestly unfounded’ claims.”[26] UNHCR emphasises that such assignment should not include a standard of proof higher than the standard of proof normally required when determining asylum claims. Also, such accelerated procedures ought to include an individual assessment of the claim and an appeal with suspensive effect.[27] UNHCR further underlines the importance of basing a general assessment of the safety of a specific country on reliable, objective and up-to-date information from various sources.[28]

5. ECRE’S POSITION

ECRE has consistently expressed serious concern about the application of the safe country of origin concept. In its Guidelines on Fair and Efficient Procedures for Determining Refugee Status, ECRE clearly underlines that “applications for asylum should never be channelled into accelerated procedures on the grounds that the authorities consider that…the applicant comes from a so-called ‘safe country of origin’.”[29] During negotiation of the asylum procedures Directive and the safe country of origin concept, ECRE stressed that “there is a fundamental flaw in the concept, in that refugee law is not about what happens generally but about the protection needs of individuals. A country may well provide generally effective remedies against violations of civil and political rights whilst denying remedy and persecuting a particular individual or group on grounds of their race, religion, political opinion, nationality or social group.”[30] Furthermore, regarding the rebuttable presumption in the concept, ECRE is concerned that “while the individual may rebut the presumption of safety, s/he may be required to do so in an accelerated procedure with only limited safeguards and with the burden of proof lying exclusively with him/her.”[31]

6. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S POSITION

Amnesty International has raised grave concerns about the use of lists of safe countries of origin. The organisation strongly contests the use of such lists as a restriction of access to the asylum procedure. When commenting on the draft proposal for the Asylum Procedures Directive, Amnesty emphasised that although the proposal purports to include the principle of the individual assessment of claims, it fears that a common list of safe countries will in practice be used as an automatic bar to access to asylum procedures in Europe.[32] Regarding the decision-making procedure to determine what countries should be on such a common list, Amnesty also has concerns about “political bargaining influenced by national interests, rather than human rights considerations.”[33]

7. SELECTED ACADEMIC ARGUMENTS

Rosemary Byrne and Andrew Shacknove

Byrne and Shacknove, authors of the thesis “The Safe Country Notion in European Law”, conclude that the “safe country of origin notion is an unhelpful innovation, as it either represents an absolute, and therefore illegal, bar to the sole opportunity for an asylum-seeker to obtain protection from persecution, or it serves to heighten de facto the burden of proof on the applicant, to disengage interviewers from fact-finding and to impede further the identification of persons at special risk”.[34] Regarding the possibility of making an accurate general determination on the safety of a country, the authors claim that evidence indicates that available information often is an inadequate basis for a general conclusion about safety.[35]

8. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION OF THE SAFE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN CONCEPT AT A NATIONAL LEVEL

The following tables provide a comparative overview of the application of the ‘safe country of origin’ concept across Europe. The countries included are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The information has predominantly been provided by the ELENA National Co-ordinators[36] in each of these countries, and is up to date at the time of writing. Where a table entry is blank, this signifies that no information was available.

AUSTRIA
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 6(1) Asylum Act; Applications for asylum as provided for in article 3 shall, at each stage of the procedure, be dismissed as being manifestly unfounded if, in the absence of any substantiated evidence of refugee status or the existence of subsidiary protection as referred to in article 8 (1), the asylum seeker is a national of a safe country of origin or has his habitual residence in such country as a stateless person.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Article 6(2) Asylum Act.
b. Who decides countries on the list	P		The legislator.
c. Flexibility to review list			Only by amendment of the Asylum Act.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list	P		The proposed list comes from the competent section in the Ministry of the Interior. The proposal has to pass approval by the Parliament.
e. Countries on prescribed list	P		Member States of the EU, Australia, Iceland, Canada, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P		Procedure for manifestly unfounded cases.
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P		Article 24 (a) (1) Asylum Act; The admission procedure, the purpose of which is to determine whether an application for asylum is admissible, shall in all cases be conducted by the Federal Asylum Agency at the initial reception centre. Such determination shall in all cases be a preliminary measure preceding the substantive examination of the asylum application. (2) Following submission of the application for asylum, an interview of the asylum seeker shall be conducted at the initial reception centre within 48 hours – but at the latest after 72 hours – concerning the route followed by him and other material facts having a bearing on the decision (initial interview). Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays shall suspend the computation of the time-limit referred to in the first sentence of the present paragraph. Prior to commencement of the interview, the asylum seeker shall be informed that his testimony will be accorded increased credibility at the initial reception centre. (3) Upon completion of the initial interview, the asylum seeker shall be notified that: 1. The procedure is admissible; 2. It is intended that his application for asylum is to be rejected as inadmissible or 3. It is intended that his application for asylum is to be dismissed. (4) Following a notification in accordance with subparagraph 1 of paragraph (3) above, the de facto protection against deportation shall terminate, the alien shall be furnished with a residence entitlement card and he may be assigned to a reception facility (article 37b). (5) If the Federal Asylum Agency intends to proceed in accordance with subparagraph 2 or 3 of paragraph (3) above, the asylum seeker shall be furnished with a copy of the case record. He shall be granted a period of not less than 24 hours in which to express his views and shall at the same time be summoned to attend a further interview after that time limit has elapsed. In the period following the initial interview, legal advice (article 39a) shall be provided at the initial reception centre; the relevant parts of the case record shall be made accessible to the legal adviser without delay (article 36). (6) If the admission procedure is conducted in the initial reception centre at the airport, paragraph (5) above shall apply with the proviso that an interview has to be held in the presence of the legal adviser (article 39a, paragraph (4)), to whom the relevant parts of the case record must be accessible at that time (article 36). Procedures pursuant to article 7 shall in no circumstances be conducted in the initial reception centre at the airport. (7) The legal adviser shall be present at the further interview. At the commencement of the further interview, the evidential findings to date shall be communicated to the asylum seeker. The asylum seeker shall have the possibility of adducing or presenting additional facts and evidence. De facto protection against deportation shall terminate upon the pronouncement of the ruling of rejection or dismissal. (8) If, within twenty days following submission of the application, the Federal Asylum Agency does not rule that the application for asylum is to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to articles 4, 4(a) or 5, the application shall be admitted unless consultations take place in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003; paragraph (4) above shall apply. A ruling dismissing an application for asylum pursuant to article 6 or a ruling pursuant to article 7 or article 10 shall replace the decision rendered in the admission procedure.
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P		Article 39 of the Asylum Act
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			See above 3.b.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P		Article 32a. (2) The appeal shall be upheld if the authority’s ruling that the application was manifestly unfounded (article 6) is erroneous. In such cases, the appeal authority shall rule on the substance of the application if the facts of the case have been sufficiently established. If the facts of the case have not been sufficiently established, the appeal authority shall refer the matter back to the authority of first instance for the procedure to be re-conducted and for an administrative decision to be rendered. Rulings pursuant to article 8 shall in all cases be deemed to be annulled. If a decision whereby an application for asylum had been dismissed as being manifestly unfounded is upheld by the appeal authority, the appeal authority shall, for its part, in all cases make a ruling pursuant to article 8.
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			Normally 14 days (where applications are filed by asylum seekers who entered Austria via an airport and who are present in the initial reception centre at the airport, the time-limit for lodging an appeal is 7 days).
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal		P	NGOs grant legal aid depending on the individual case.
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P		The independent Federal Asylum Review Board may grant suspensive effect in the case of an appeal within seven days from receipt of the appeal submission.
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		Article 6 of the Asylum Act
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		Article 6 of the Asylum Act; Applications for asylum as provided for in article 3 shall, at each stage of the procedure, be dismissed as being manifestly unfounded if, in the absence of any substantiated evidence of refugee status or the existence of subsidiary protection as referred to in article 8; (1) The asylum seeker is a national of a safe country of origin or has his habitual residence in such country as a stateless person.
c. Additional requirements imposed	P		Applicants from safe countries of origin might be practically barred from presenting new facts or evidence at a late stage in the procedure. If they do not immediately present their full story, they may be denied access to the appeal system. Article 32(1) of the Asylum Act; In appeals against rulings of the Federal Asylum Agency, only new facts and evidence may be submitted: 1. If the grounds on which the ruling was based have, since the time of the ruling by the authority of first resort, undergone changes having a bearing on the decision; 2. If the procedure conducted by the authority of first resort was irregular; 3. If such new facts and evidence were not accessible to the asylum seeker by the time of the ruling of the authority of first resort (nova reperta) or 4. If the asylum seeker was not in a position to submit such new facts and evidence.

BELGIUM
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

BULGARIA
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 1(4) of the Additional Provisions of the Law on Asylum and Refugees(LAR); a country in which the life and freedom of the asylum seeker are not endangered and s/he is not a subject to a threat of persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment could be considered a safe country of origin.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P		Not published in the Official Gazette, but distributed widely.
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Article 48(3) of the Law on Asylum and Refugees.
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Chair of the State Agency for Refugees in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggests annually, prior to 31 March, to the government a list of safe countries of origin for adoption. The overnment hold the final decision.
c. Flexibility to review list	P		On an annual basis.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list		P	No consultations prior to the adoption.
e. Countries on prescribed list	P		Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU, FYROM, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey and Ukraine, Armenia, Bangladesh, Georgia, China, Algeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania, USA, Canada
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’		P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		This can be contested in ourt, and general practice suggests that such application should not to be considered manifestly unfounded.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P	General rules apply. According to the jurisprudence and court practice, the list of the safe countries of origin adopted annually by the Government could be used by the decision maker only as a rebuttable presumption, which does not lift the obligation of the Administration to collect and reason the decision with all relevant information and evidence on the situation of the country concerned.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

CZECH REPUBLIC
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		The country of former habitual residence where: (a) the state powers respect human rights and are capable of ensuring compliance with human rights and legal regulations; (b) which has ratified and complies with international agreements on human rights and fundamental freedoms; (c) which allows the activity of legal entities which supervise the status compliance with human rights.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis	P
a. Who decides countries on list			Ministry of Interior
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			1 month
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			7 days
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings	P		Based on request
h.ii. Appeal in writing only		P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P		Free legal aid provided by NGOs
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		The application is to be considered manifestly unfounded if the asylum seeker was formerly a habitual resident in a country where: (a) the state powers respect human rights and are capable of ensuring compliance with human rights and legal regulations; (b) which has ratified and complies with international agreements on human rights and fundamental freedoms; (c) which allows the activity of legal entities which supervise the status compliance with human rights.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

DENMARK
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Partly provided for by the Danish Aliens Act and partly by the preparatory works (explanatory notes) to amendments of the Aliens Act. Asylum seekers originating from safe countries of origin will be processed in a speedier version of the manifestly unfounded procedure.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation		P
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Danish Immigration Service after consultations with the Danish Refugee Council.
c. Flexibility to review list	P
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list			Estonia, Latvia, Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Benin, Ghana, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania, Canada, USA, New Zealand, Australia, The Nordic countries, Western Europe, Japan, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Ethnic Serbs from Serbia and Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Moldavia
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P		An asylum seeker originating from a safe country is automatically placed in an expedited manifestly unfounded procedure
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			Approximately one week.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure		P	No, but an application for permission to stay in Denmark on humanitarian grounds (under Section 96 of the Aliens Act) can however be submitted to the Ministry of Integration. Such an application must be submitted immediately upon receiving notification of rejection; if it is to have suspensive effect deportation while a decision is pending (this normally takes just a few days).
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P
c. Additional requirements imposed	P		There is an extended possibility to detain asylum seekers originating from safe countries during the procedure.

FINLAND
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Section 100 of the Aliens Act; (1) When deciding on an application in the asylum procedure, a State where the applicant is not at risk of persecution or serious violations of human rights may be considered a safe country of origin for the applicant. (2) When assessing a safe country of origin, particular account is taken of: 1) whether the State has a stable and democratic political system; 2) whether the State has an independent and impartial judicial system, and whether the administration of justice meets the requirements for a fair trial; and 3) whether the State has signed and adheres to the main international conventions on human rights, and whether serious violations of human rights have taken place in the State.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis	P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list			Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and Slovakia
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			7 days from handing in the application at the Directorate of Immigration
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			30 days
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P
j. Suspensive effect of appeal		P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’		P	Applicants originating from safe countries are processed through a separate accelerated procedure, not the “manifestly unfounded” accelerated procedure.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		The applicants are assumed to originate from a safe country; they hence have to rebut this presumption.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

GERMANY
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 16(a)(3) of the Constitution (Grundgesetz); Legislation requiring the consent of the Bundesrat may be introduced to specify countries where the legal situation, the application of the law and the general political circumstances justify the assumption that neither political persecution nor inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment takes place there. A foreigner from such a country shall not be considered subject to persecution on political grounds unless he presents facts showing that, contrary to this assumption, he is subject to political persecution.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Section 29(a)(2) of the Asylum Procedure Act; Safe countries of origin are the states named in Appendix II.
b. Who decides countries on the list			Section 29(a)(3); The overnment after consultation with Parliament.
c. Flexibility to review list	P		Section 29(a)(3); The Federal Government shall resolve by statutory ordinance without the consent of the Bundesrat that a state named in the Appendix II is no longer deemed a safe country of origin if changes in its political or legal situation pose a reason for presuming that the requirements mentioned in Article 16(a)(3), first sentence, of the Basic Law have ceased to exist. The ordinance shall expire no later than six months after its taking effect.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list			Bulgaria, Gambia, Ghana, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Slovakian Republic, Czech Republic, Hungary
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure		P	Not during the procedure at the Federal Office of Asylum – but no applicant has at that stage of the procedure. If the case is reviewed by the administrative court, legal aid may be granted.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			5 days
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			It should be decided by the court within one week after the notification of the application (Section 36(3) of the Asylum Procedure Act)– in practice, the decision in most of the cases is carried out by the court in a period between four and eight weeks.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P		If the court sees a chance of success, which is seen in less than 10 % of the cases.
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P		Only as long as the complaint against deportation, which is combined in the procedural law with the appeal against the decision that denies the right of asylum for the applicant, has not been decided by the court. Any deportation prior to a court decision is not admissible if the complaint has been lodged in due time (Section 36(3) of the Asylum Procedure Act) As soon as the deportation rule is consented by the court, the suspensive effect of the application ends and the applicant may be deported although his “main case” (will asylum be granted?) is still pending in the court.
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal	P		A further complaint against the negative decision by the administrative court concerning the deportation order (which would lead to the higher administrative court) is possible.
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		Section 29(a)(1) of the Asylum Procedure Act; The asylum application of any alien from a state within the meaning of Art. 16(a)(3), first sentence, of the Basic Law (safe country of origin) shall be turned down as being manifestly unfounded , unless the facts or evidence produced by the alien a reason for the presumption that he faces political persecution in his country of origin in spite of the general situation there.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

GREECE
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used	P		Art. 4, section 1 in Presidential Degree 61/99 refers to the London Resolutions of 1992 and uses the term “manifestly unfounded.” The interpretation of this term does also include asylum seekers labelled as originating from a safe country of origin.
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P	There is no information indicating that an informal list exists.
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’		P	Practice shows that for asylum seekers originating from certain countries, e.g. Eastern European countries such as Rumania and Georgia, the accelerated procedure for manifestly unfounded claims is used. Nevertheless, there is no information indicating that an informal list exists. The practice is also not automatic in so far as some persons originating from these countries will be processed through the regular procedure.
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

HUNGARY
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide0	P		Article 2(d) of the Asylum Act; Safe country of origin: the presumption relating to the country of nationality, or in the case of a stateless person, to the habitual residence, of the person seeking recognition as refugee, according to which presumption that country observes/implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Geneva Convention, the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom signed in Rome on 4 November, 1950, and where because of the characteristics of the legal order and the guarantees of legality there may not exist a threat of persecution for reasons of nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion, race, religion; or torture, inhumane or degrading treatment and which country allows independent national and international organisations to control and supervise the enforcement of human rights. According to Article 4(c) of the Asylum Act, the concept can serve as a basis for rejecting the application for recognition as a refugee; The recognition of a foreigner as a refugee (…) who arrived from a country which qualifies, according to this Act, as a safe country of origin or safe third country, and the applicant has not proved that that country does not comply with the conditions set forth by Section 2 paragraphs d)-e) (…) shall be refused. Article 20(3) of the ‘Government Decree No.172/2001 (IX.26.) On the Detailed Rules of Asylum Procedures and Documents of Temporarily Protected Persons’ defines how to examine the applicability of the SCO concept; When establishing whether a given country qualifies as safe country of origin, the refugee authority shall examine by taking into consideration the provision in Subsection (2) whether the given country qualifies as safe third country in relation to the applicant; shall assess the recognition rate of those applying for asylum from the safe country previously, the practical respect of human rights, the existence of democratic institutions and the activities thereof as well as the stability of the state and political systems in the given country. During the procedure special attention shall be accorded to information provided by UNHCR. In addition, the concept appears in the non-refoulement provision defined in Article 43(1) of the Alien Policing Act; Returning, refusal of entry and expulsion shall not be ordered and shall not be implemented with respect to a country which, with regard to the person concerned, does not qualify as safe country of origin or a safe third country, in particular, where the foreigner would be exposed to persecution owing to reasons of race, religion, national or social affiliation or political views, or to the territory of a state or the border of an area where there is good reason to suppose that the returned, refused or expelled foreigner would be exposed to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P	The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has no official knowledge of the existence of a prescribed (written) list of ‘safe countries of origin’ in Hungary and it seems that such a list does not exist. This assessment is based on the general knowledge obtained on the basis of the asylum caseload dealt with by HHC and has been repeatedly confirmed in the framework of the regular co-operation established between the Information Officer of HHC and other COI researchers.
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P	The HHC has no official knowledge of the existence of informal list.
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’		P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’		P	This formulation is not used in this context. However, unless the applicant can prove that his country of origin does not fulfil the criteria of a safe country as defined under Article 2(d) of the Asylum Act then this will serve as a basis for rejecting the application (see answer to question 2(b) above).
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

IRELAND
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		The Immigration Act 2003 provides that where it appears to the Commissioner that an asylum applicant is a national of, or is entitled to live in, a country designated by the Minister as a safe country of origin then s/he shall be presumed not to be a refugee unless s/he can show reasonable grounds for the contention that s/he is a refugee.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation		P
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Minister for Justice may after consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs by order designate a country as a safe country of origin. Legislation provides that in deciding whether to make such a designation, the Minister shall have regard to whether the country is party to and generally complies with obligations under the CAT, the ICCPR and where appropriate the ECHR. The Minister shall also have regard to whether the country has a democratic political system and an independent judiciary, and whether it is governed by the rule of law.
c. Flexibility to review list			The inister may by order amend or revoke an order.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list		P
e. Countries on prescribed list			Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			10 days
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		A person is presumed not to be a refugee unless s/he shows reasonable grounds for the contention that’s/he is a refugee.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		Rebuttable presumption.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

ITALY
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

LITHUANIA
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 2 of 2004 April 29 Law on Legal Status of Foreigners defines SCO as country in which legal system, legal practice and political situation ensures that person is not persecuted for the reasons of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion, nobody faces torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and basic human rights and freedoms are not violated. Articles 77 and 81 provide that asylum applications from safe country of origin must be rejected in 48 hours (the period of examination might be prolonged up to 7 days). Paragraph 31 of 2004 November 15 Minister’s of Interior Decree on Examination of Asylum Applications, Decision Making and Execution specifies SCO as country in which 1950 ECHR and/or 1966 ICCPR are respected, NGOs are permitted to monitor the implementation of international human rights obligations, democratic political system, effective legal system including legal mechanism for compensation of damages are established. Number of asylum applications from such country in EU member states and practical possibility of internal flight in such country must be taken into account.
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Paragraphs 32-37 of 2004 November 15 Minister’s of Interior Decree on Examination of Asylum Applications.
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Ministry of Interior in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
c. Flexibility to review list	P		Decision Making and Execution provide that Ministry of Interior in cooperation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other relevant institutions prepare reports on SCO, renew them every year and if situation in SCO changes.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list		P	Reports are secret, and the Ministry of Interior approves them.
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			48 hours of examination may be to 7 days, interview included.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			7 days.
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			According to the law 10 days. In practice, court proceedings take approximately 1 to 5 months.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings	P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only		P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		The safe country of origin concept might be regarded as a special case of manifestly unfounded applications. Article 2 of 2004 April 29 Law on Legal Status of Foreigners defines manifestly unfounded applications as applications which is fraudulent, abusing the asylum procedure or showing no danger in the country of origin.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		Applicant must present information manifestly proving that his/her country of origin is not safe.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

LUXEMBOURG
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

THE NETHERLANDS
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 31(2) (g-i); g) a country which is a member of the Refugee Convention and the ECHR or CAT; h) a safe third country which is a member of the Refugee Convention and the ECHR or CAT and in which country the alien stayed before his arrival in The Netherlands. I) a country in which the alien stayed before his arrival and in which he will be allowed to sty until he will get protection in another country. This article does not provide for automatic grounds for rejection, however, an asylum seeker originating from a country that fulfils the criteria must have good reasons to prove that protection by The Netherlands is necessary.
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P	There used to be a list under the former Aliens Act, but since the implementation of the new Act in 2001, this list has been abolished.
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P	In Netherlands there is not really a list, given the fact that article 31(2)(g) is very broadly formulated. However the highest appeal institution, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (AJD) ruled on March 19 2004, in a case of an asylum seeker from Hungary, that to determine whether a country is a safe country or not it is necessary to look at the actual situation. In that way it also is important whether persons from these countries need visas to come to Netherlands, whether they are members from the EU or whether there are association agreements with countries that will become EU-member. According to the AJD asylum request from persons originating from a safe country (i.e. as defined under Article 31(2) have to be treated in a different way: they have to prove that they could not receive protection from the authorities and when the fear for persecution comes from the authorities they have to prove why they can not get protection from the higher authorities
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’			The fast-track procedure is 48 hours and is currently the rule rather than the exception. About 80% of all cases are dealt with in this procedure irrespective the country of origin. Only asylum applications from persons originating from “unsafe” countries, meaning countries for which a special asylum policy is implemented, are not dealt with in this procedure; they receive a temporary residence permit.
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			48 hours.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			One week.
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			There is real time frame set, but normally the time for a court decision is 6 weeks.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P
j. Suspensive effect of appeal		P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal	P
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’			Article 31(2)(g-i) are not imperative rejections, which means that it cannot be the sole reason for rejection.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		When article 31(2)(g-i) are applicable it is more difficult for the asylum seeker.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

NORWAY
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used	P		Assumed unfounded application includes the safe country notion. The assignment of safe countries is made on a general evaluation of the knowledge of a specific country. The criteria for such decisions are based on internal, non-official guidelines composed by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis	P
a. Who decides countries on list			The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration
b. Publicly available	P
c. Flexibility to review list	P
d. Countries on informal list			Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia Denmark, Estonia, the Falkland Islands, Germany, Gibraltar, Greenland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Moldavia, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zeeland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, south-Africa, UK, Ukraine, USA, the Vatican
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			48 hours.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			2 hours.
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P
j. Suspensive effect of appeal		P	If the appeal indicates that the case might not be unfounded the appeal is given suspensive effect. Norway started its accelerated procedure on 01.01.2004 and only 7% of cases in this procedure have received suspensive effect to date.
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		Asylum seekers who have their cases treated in the normal procedure have close to a year in Norway before they receive an initial decision on their application for asylum. During this period of time s/he may look for and/or retrieve documents and information that could be vital to his/her claim. In the 48-hour procedure the asylum seeker is judged on the basis of what s/he brings forward on the first day, owing to the short time frame for decision.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

POLAND
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 2(2) of the Act of 13 June 2003 on Granting Protection to Aliens within the Territory of Poland; safe country of origin - the country of alien’s origin, in which, taking into account the system of law and its application as well as political relations prevailing therein, no persecutions take place due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and non-governmental and international organizations are free to act for human rights observation.
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P	Polish legislation does not provide for a prescribed list of safe countries of origin. It should be borne in mind that the concept was introduced into Polish legislation relatively recently and is not applied often in practice. It is a basis on which an application can be declared manifestly unfounded and accelerated procedures applied.
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure		P	If it is established that the application is “manifestly unfounded” no further examination of the case is necessary and negative decision is given without an interview.
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure		P	Polish law does not provide for free legal aid in any administrative proceedings, including the asylum procedure.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure	P		Article 29(2) of the Act on Granting Protection to Aliens within the Territory of Poland; The decision on the refusal to grant the refugee status for the reason of manifestly unfounded application should be rendered within the time limit of 30 days from the date of submission of the application.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P		The right to appeal is not limited.
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			Three days from the date of its delivery to an alien
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings		P	No such time frame.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal			An applicant may get legal assistance provided by NGOs or commercial lawyers. There is no legal assistance sponsored by the Government.
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P		An applicant may not be removed from Poland until his/her administrative procedure is concluded. That refers also to manifestly unfounded cases. An applicant may be deported, however, during proceedings before administrative courts.
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		Article 14(1)(3) of the Act on Granting Protection to Aliens within the Territory of Poland: 1. An alien shall be refused the refugee status for the reason of manifestly unfounded nature of the application for granting the refugee status, if this application (…) 3. Indicates, that an alien has arrived from a safe country of origin or a safe third country to which he/she has the right to return to.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

PORTUGAL
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Section 13 of the Asylum Act; Refusal of Petition 1) The petition shall not be admitted in case, through the proceedings prescribed in the present law... the below items are immediately found to be obvious b) to be made by petitioner that is national or habitual resident in a country likely to be considered as a safe country or a third host country. 3) For the purposes of paragraph 1 (b), shall be considered as: a) Safe country: the country in relation to which can safely be determined that, in an objective and verifiable way, it does not origin refugees or in relation to which can be determined that the circumstances that could previously justify the claim of the 1951 Geneva Convention have ceased to exist, taking namely into account the following elements: respect for human rights, existence and normal operation of democratic institutions, political stability.
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list		P	There is no prescribed list (either officially or unofficially). It needs to be borne in mind that Portugal receives very few asylum applications (84 in 2004). A finding that a country is generically safe can be used by the authorities to declare an application inadmissible, and therefore as not requiring a detailed individual examination (see answer to question 1(b) above).
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P		The normal procedure is applied, however this normal procedure has two phases: an admissibility phase and an eligibility phase. In practical terms, the referred admissibility phase can be considered an accelerated asylum procedure. Therefore, and since coming from a country likely to be considered safe is grounds for the non-admission of a petition, a petition in such conditions will go through an accelerated procedure, within the normal procedure.
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P		Provided by an NGO, the Portuguese refugee Council, throughout the asylum procedure.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			According to the Asylum Law (article 14) the decision on the admissibility of the petition has to be reached by the Director of Aliens and Borders Service within 20 working days. The Asylum Law also states a special procedure for requests presented at border points. According to article 18, the Director of Aliens and Borders Service shall issue a grounded decision admitting or not the request within 5 working days. If no decision has been issued within these time frames, the petitions shall be considered as admitted.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P		There is the right to an administrative appeal to the National Commissioner for Refugees (entity created within the Ministry of Internal Affairs) with suspensive effect. If, the decision of the National Commissioner is still of non-admissibility, there is the right to a judicial appeal/review to the Administrative Court, with no suspensive effect (article 16).
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			5 days for an administrative appeal (24 hours in requests presented a the borders.). 8 days to lodge a judicial appeal.
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			Administrative appeal 48 hours; judicial appeal 1 year.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings			The national Commissioner for Refugees may interview the applicant.
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P		Provided by the Portuguese Refugee Council
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P	P	Administrative appeal has suspensive effect. Judicial appeal has no suspensive effect
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin	P		The asylum seeker has to prove that his/her country is not safe or although his/her country of origin can be considered safe, it is not safe or him/her personally.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

ROMANIA
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 20 of Government Ordinance 102/2000 regarding the status and regime of refugees in Romania (approved by Romanian Parliament by Law 323/2001) – hereafter called Refugee Law – stipulates: 1)Countries for which it is considered that in general there is no serious risk of persecution, in the sense of Article 2, paragraph (1), are the Member States of the European Union, as well as other states to be determined by order of the Minister of the Interior, upon the suggestion of the National Refugee Office, based on the following criteria: a) the number of applications for granting of refugee status lodged by the citizens of that country and the percentages for which this status was granted; b) the situation concerning respect for fundamental human rights; c) the functioning of democratic principles, political pluralism and free elections, as well as the existence of 2) functional democratic institutions that guarantee the observance of fundamental human rights; d) the existence of stability factors. (2) Criteria for evaluation other than those stipulated under paragraph (1) may also be considered. (3) The application of an alien coming from a country in which in general there does not exist a risk of persecution shall be rejected as manifestly unfounded, with the exception of the cases where the circumstances or the evidence presented by the applicant indicate the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution in the sense of Article 2, paragraph (1).
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Art. 20 of Government Decision 622/2001 for Approval of Methodological Norms for the implementation of the Refugee Law – “ The list of the countries where there is no serious persecution risk, approved by an order of the Ministry of Interior, is published in the Romanian Official Gazette, part I”.
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Ministry of Administration and Interior decides which countries are to be included on the list, based on the proposal made by the national refugee office.
c. Flexibility to review list	P		By order of the Ministry of Administration and Interior.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list			EU (2002), Andorra, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Norway, Poland, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary.
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure		P	Free legal aid should be available in court proceedings for destitute persons (and most asylum seekers are destitute persons) following a procedure of appointment of the lawyer by the Bar Association as per requested by the court. In practice the Bar Association did not respond to such requests. Lately, the court did not take into account asylum-seekers’ requests for free legal aid motivating that the Bar Association did not respond.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			The interview takes place a few days (an average 4 days) after lodging the claim. The decision is issued three days after the interview (stipulated in the Refugee Law).
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			Two days from when the decision is communicated to the asylum seeker.
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			Article 21 of the Refugee Law stipulates; The court settles the complaint within 10 days and gives a motivated decision through which: a) rejects the complaint for at least one of the reasons foreseen in article 18 (1); b) admits the complaint, disposes that the competent structure of the National Refugee Office that issued the decision will analyse the application under ordinary procedure.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P
i. Legal aid available for appeal			Free legal aid should be available in court proceedings for destitute persons (and most asylum seekers are destitute persons) following a procedure of appointment of the lawyer by the Bar Association as per requested by the court. In practice the Bar Association did not respond to such requests. Lately, the court did not take into account asylum seekers’ requests for free legal aid motivating that the Bar Association did not respond.
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal	P		Under the Law on the Regime of Aliens in Romania (Government Ordinance 194/2002 approved by Romanian Parliament by Law 357/2003). In Romania a finally rejected asylum seeker may receive an order to leave the Romania territory within 5 days. He may lodge an appeal against the order within 5 working days of its communication. Such an appeal has the suspensive effect only if the appellant shows that the removal produces imminent damage.
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		Art. 20 paragraph (3) of the Refugee Law, the application of an alien coming from a country in which in general there does not exist a risk of persecution shall be rejected as manifestly unfounded, with the exception of the cases where the circumstances or the evidence presented by the applicant indicate the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution in the sense of Article 2, paragraph (1).
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P		The concept is not included in the Refugee Law as such, however it is provided for in a Presidential Decree from 21 June 1997 “On the Manner of granting Political Asylum in the Russian Federation”, issued by the President of the Russian Federation.
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Section 5 in the Presidential Decree from 21 June 1997: “Political asylum will not be granted in the Russian Federation: “… If the person has come from a country with developed and permanent democratic institutions in the field of the defence of human rights; If the person has come from a country, with which the Russian Federation has concluded an agreement on a visa-free regime, although this does not affect the right of the person in question to applying for asylum in accordance with the Law of the RF “On Refugees.”
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Regulated by the Presidential Decree of 21 June 1997.
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
c. Flexibility to review list			The Ministry of Foreign Affairs sends the list to the Federal Migration service once a year.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list		P
e. Countries on prescribed list			The list for 2005 has not yet been set by Presidential Decree, but it usually includes all developed countries and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure		P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure		P	Legal aid only if provided by an NGO.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P		Appeal in writing to the Appeals Commission of the Migration Service or to a higher court. There is no point appealing to the former – just to the court.
i. Legal aid available for appeal		P
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P		This right exists in theory, but problems with documentation and gaps in the system result in the police treating individuals as being illegally resident and arranging their speedy deportation. This process can take place very quickly.
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’		P	This formulation is not used as such although in practice staff from the Migration Service ‘discourage’ or ‘decline’ applications from safe countries, and ‘explain’ that it is pointless for such nationals to apply. Every year the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Russian Federation sends the above-mentioned list of countries to the Federal Migration Service (see reply to question no. 2). Nationals from these countries should hence not be granted political asylum. This is of particular interest taking into account the fact that no one from a safe country has ever received political asylum in the Russian Federation to this day.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

SLOVENIA
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

SPAIN
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

SWEDEN
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation		P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide
c. Another term used		P
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list
a. Regulated by legislation
b. Who decides countries on the list
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list
e. Countries on prescribed list
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure
f. Time frame for lodging appeal
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings
h.ii. Appeal in writing only
i. Legal aid available for appeal
j. Suspensive effect of appeal
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin
c. Additional requirements imposed

SWITZERLAND
Question	Yes	No	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Article 34 of the Asylum Act: Dismissal of asylum applications from safe countries; 1) The Federal Council may designate countries in which, according to its findings, there is safety from persecution; it periodically reviews decisions taken on this subject. 2) Applications or appeals of asylum seekers from safe countries are dismissed without entering into the substance of the case unless there are indications of persecution.
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Article 34 of the Asylum Act; Dismissal of asylum applications from safe countries; 1) The Federal Council may designate countries in which, according to its findings, there is safety from persecution; it periodically reviews decisions taken on this subject. The law does not provide further criteria.
b. Who decides countries on the list			The Federal Council, Article 34(1) Asylum Act, normally upon suggestion by the Federal Office for Refugees.
c. Flexibility to review list	P		The list should be reviewed periodically, and of course upon a change of situation. Amendments can be made following a decision from the Federal Council.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list		P	The Federal Council is supposed to collect facts/ findings/ information from neighbouring countries, the UNHCR and other sources available, but the decisions are not made public.
e. Countries on prescribed list			Albania, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Greece, India, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Czech republic, Hungary, UK, Republic of Cyprus
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P		The claim is considered as manifestly unfounded. Hence, the authorities have a right to refuse to examine the merits of the claim.
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P	P	Swiss law does not provide asylum seekers to benefit from legal aid. In practice, only few manage to organise legal representation. However, there is the possibility to apply for free legal aid in the individual case. In most cases, applications for free legal aid are rejected on the grounds that the case lacks a chance of success, or because it does not involve a complex legal issue.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			10 days (if possible) for the Federal Office for Refugees.
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			5 working days.
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			6 weeks, or if claimant agrees to refrain from formal exchange of written statements, 5 working days (if possible).
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings		P
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P		In an official language (German, French, Italian). Unofficially, the Recourse commission also accepts appeals in English. By registered mail (or fax, followed by reg. mail).
i. Legal aid available for appeal		P	There is no automatic legal representation. It is down to the asylum seeker to organise it. See answer to 3c.
j. Suspensive effect of appeal	P
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal		P	The appeal is against the non-entry decision and the removal order at the same time. The second instance, however, cannot decide on the merits of the case in such an appeals procedure. If the Appeal Commission gives a positive decision, the case is returned to the first instance for entry into the regular procedure. Usually, the Appeals Commission decides that the legal remedies are exhausted after the second instance decision.
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P	Actually, the decision that the presumption is rebutted and the case should enter the regular procedure should only require a very low standard of proof (prima facie – level). As soon as the case enters the regular procedure, normal standards are applicable.
c. Additional requirements imposed		P	The Asylum Law and jurisprudence of the Appeals Commission consider the presumption rebutted if the asylum seeker can show/indicate any facts that would lead to any form of protection, including subsidiary protection. However, the Federal Office considers the safe country presumption rebutted only if the asylum seeker can indicate persecution leading to asylum/refugee status.

THE UNITED KINGDOM
Question	Y	N	Details
1. The concept ‘safe country of origin’
a. ‘Safe country of origin’ concept within domestic asylum/aliens legislation	P		Countries concerned are those designated as being without serious risk of human rights abuses / persecution.
b. Specific section of legislation, and what does it provide	P		Section 94(4) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (NIAA) 2002 sets out a list of states. Claims for asylum made by nationals / those with the right to reside in those states must be certified unless he is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded. Section 94 (5) NIAA 2002 allows the Secretary of State to add a state or part of a state to the list if he is satisfied that there is in general in that state or in the specified part of that state no serious risk of persecution or of a contravention of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. Two orders have been made under section 94(5) Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003 SI 2003 2003/970 and Asylum (Designated States) (No 2) Order 2003 SI 2003/ 1919.
c. Another term used
2. List of ‘safe country of origin’
i) Prescribed list	P
a. Regulated by legislation	P		Section 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (NIAA) 2002 sets out a list of states.
b. Who decides countries on the list			The UK Government
c. Flexibility to review list			Secretary of State is to add a state or part of a state to the list if he is satisfied that there is in general in that state or in the specified part of that state no serious risk of persecution or of a contravention of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. Two orders have been made under s. 94(5) Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003 SI 2003 2003/970 and Asylum (Designated States) (No 2) Order 2003 SI 2003/ 1919.
d. Transparent decision-making procedure for prescribed list		P	But there is an independent monitor for non-suspensive appeals who makes a yearly report to Parliament – the first report should be published in the new year. There is also an independent body that reviews the Home Office’s country reports, which presumably contribute to the country of origin information.
e. Countries on prescribed list			Albania, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Hungary, Jamaica, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Ukraine
ii) Authorities operate a list on informal basis		P
a. Who decides countries on list
b. Publicly available
c. Flexibility to review list
d. Countries on informal list
3. Procedure operated in relation to asylum seekers from ‘safe countries of origin’
a. Accelerated procedure, if from a ‘safe country of origin’	P		Applicants are sent to Oakington Reception Centre unless they are unsuitable for detention for some reason (e.g. ill health) or there is no space available).
b. Access to interview in such accelerated procedure	P
c. Access to free legal aid in such accelerated procedure	P		In fact better rights as such applicants have a right to have their representative at their asylum interview that is otherwise only available in more limited circumstances.
d. Time frame for processing application in such accelerated procedure			Decisions at Oakington are made in about 7 days: days 1 and 2 the applicant can consult a lawyer, day three they are interviewed, day four and five they can submit further evidence and representations, day 6 and 7 a decision is made on the claim (approximately). This timetable is subject to quite substantial slippage however and often decisions take up to 14 days. If the claim is certified as “clearly unfounded” then an immigration decision to remove can be made and removal directions given. The applicant will be informed that he/she does not have the right to appeal if she remains in the UK – Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003 SI 2003/658 reg 5(3)(b)
e. Right to appeal in such accelerated procedure	P
f. Time frame for lodging appeal			Where certified 28 days after applicant leaves the UK SI 2003/652 r 7(2).
g. Time frame for appeal proceedings			If removed and appealing from abroad it will just in the normal system with no specific time frame. Generally the appeal is heard within a couple of months.
h.i. Oral appeal proceedings	P		Optional – at request of applicant it can be written or oral.
h.ii. Appeal in writing only	P		Optional.
i. Legal aid available for appeal	P		Depending on the appellant having a low income and a sufficiently meritorious case.
j. Suspensive effect of appeal		P	Only if not certified. If the asylum claim is refused, the Secretary of State must certify the claim as “clearly unfounded” unless satisfied that it is not. If the claim is refused and certified in this way, the applicant will have no “suspensive” right of appeal and will be removed to exercise their right of appeal from abroad, unless Judicial Review can overturn the certificate. The process can also be applied on a case-by-case basis to nationals of other countries. The difference is, however, that is there is a duty to certify in relation to nationals of / those with a right to reside in the listed countries if their claims are “clearly unfounded”.
k. Possibility to challenge removal in higher courts if no automatic right to appeal	P		Can challenge certification by judicial review in the Administrative Court.
4. Standard of proof
a. Application presumed to be ‘manifestly unfounded’ if from ‘safe country of origin’	P		Certification on the basis of being clearly unfounded, but this is deemed to mean the same as manifestly unfounded, which was the statutory term used under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Cases must be considered individually, and there is no presumption that the case is “clearly unfounded” if the applicant is from a country on the list – there is simply a duty to consider whether the claim is clearly unfounded.
b. Higher standard of proof if asylum seeker from ‘safe country of origin		P
c. Additional requirements imposed		P

[1] van Outrive, L, ‘Belgien; La politique de migration, des immigrés et le droit d’asile en Belgique’ in Comparative Law of Asylum and Immigration in Europe, 1992, (hereafter referred to as Comparative Law), p 14. Also see Hailbronner, K, The Concept of ‘Safe Country’ and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective, International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 5, 1993, pp 31-65, (hereafter referred to as The Concept of ‘Safe Country’), p 39.

[2] Hailbronner, K, The Concept of ‘Safe Country’, pp 42-3. Also see de Jong, C.D, ‘The need for a harmonised European policy on asylum’ in Hailbronner K, Comparative Law, pp 132-3.

[3] Hailbronner, K, The Concept of ‘Safe Country’, pp 37-8. Also see Phar, W, ‘Österreich; Asyl- und Einwanderungsrecht in Österreich’ in Hailbronner, K, Comparative Law, p 68.

[4] Hailbronner, K, The Concept of ‘Safe Country’, p 47-8.

[5] Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum, 30 November-1 December 1992, Resolution on a Harmonized Approach to the Questions Concerning Host Third Countries, 30 November-1 December 1992, and Conclusion on Countries in Which There is Generally no Serious Risk of Persecution, 30 November-1 December 1992.

[6] Resolution on Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum. In the resolutions, a reference is made to Conclusion No. 30 of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR, used as a source of inspiration; UNHCR EXCOM, 'The Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum', Conclusion No. 30 (XXXIV), 1983.

[7] Conclusion on Countries in Which There is Generally no Serious Risk of Persecution, recital 1.

[9] Conclusion on Countries in Which There is Generally no Serious Risk of Persecution, recital 3.

[10] Hailbronner K, The Concept of ‘Safe Country’, p 56.

[11] ECRE, Broken Promises – Forgotten principles. An ECRE evaluation of the Development of the EU Minimum Standards for Refugee Protection, Tampere 1999 – Brussels 2004, 2004. Also see the Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Related Acts, 10 November 1997.

[12] Council of the European Union, 14203/04 ASILE 64, Annex I; Amended proposal for a Council Directive on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and Withdrawing Refugee Status, 2004, recital 5-6. The Council reached political agreement on the Amended proposal for the Directive on 29 April 2004, and formal adoption will occur after consultation with the European Parliament; Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, A more Efficient Common European Asylum System; The Single Procedure as the Next Step, COM (2004) 503 final, 2004.

[13] European Commission, Newsroom, Asylum procedures - agreement on the principle of having a joint list of safe countries of origin, 2003.

[14] Council of the European Union, 14383/04 ASILE 65, 2004. Also see Statewatch, EU divided over list of “safe countries of origin” – Statewatch calls for the list to be scrapped, 2004.

[15] Council of the European Union, 14203/04 ASILE 64, article 30.

[16] Article 9 of the Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted: Acts of persecution 1. Acts of persecution within the meaning of article 1 A of the Geneva Convention must: (a) be sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; or (b) be an accumulation of various measures, including violations of human rights which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as mentioned in (a). 2. Acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1, can, inter alia, take the form of: (a) acts of physical or mental violence, including acts of sexual violence; (b) legal, administrative, police, and/or judicial measures which are in themselves discriminatory or which are implemented in a discriminatory manner; (c) prosecution or punishment, which is disproportionate or discriminatory; (d) denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment; (e) prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under the exclusion clauses as set out in Article 12(2); (f) acts of a gender-specific or child-specific nature. 3. In accordance with Article 2(c), there must be a connection between the reasons mentioned in Article 10 and the acts of persecution as qualified in paragraph 1.

[17] Council of the European Union, 14203/04 ASILE 64, Annex B to the Annex I; Designation of Safe Countries of origin for the purposes of Articles 30 and 30A (1).

[19] Council of the European Union, 14203/04 ASILE 64, article 30A.

[25] Global Consultation on International Protection, EC/GC/01/12, 2001, p 9.

[26] UNHCR, Certain Comments by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the Asylum and Immigration Bill 1995, 1996.

[27] UNHCR, UNHCR Urges Caution as EU Negotiates “Safe Country” Concepts, 2003.

UNHCR, Certain Comments by the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees on the Asylum and Immigration Bill 1995.

[29] ECRE, Guidelines on Fair and Efficient Procedures for Determining Refugee Status, 1999, para 21 c and para 119 c.

[30] ECRE, Summary Comments from the European Council on Refugees and Exiles on the Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, 2003, p 7.

[31] ECRE, letter to Mr Antonio Vittorino, Call for Withdrawal of the Asylum Procedures Directive, 2004, p 2.

[32] Amnesty International, news release: “EU: Asylum – ‘Safe countries’ list and other policy proposals risk discrimination and human rights abuse”, 2004.

[34] R. Byrne, A. Shacknove, The Safe Country Notion in European Asylum Law, Harvard Human Rights Law Journal Vol. 9, 1996, p 80. The thesis is partially based on information from approximately seventy interviews with governmental and intergovernmental officials dealing with refugees, immigration and police matters, and from representatives of NGOs, lawyers and academics in Europe and North America.

[36] The European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA) is a forum for legal practitioners who aim to promote the highest human rights standards for the treatment of refugees, asylum seekers and other persons in need of international protection in their daily counselling and advocacy work. The ELENA network extends across 25 central and western European states and involves some 2,000 lawyers and legal counsellors.