Safe country of origin – Legal term, definition and significance
Term “safe country of origin”
The term “safe country of origin” refers to a central concept in asylum law. It describes countries which, according to a universally applicable assessment, are assumed to be free from political persecution or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The legal status as a safe country of origin has significant effects on the asylum procedure for individuals coming from these countries.
Legal basis in Germany
Statutory provisions and definition
The main legal basis in Germany is the Asylum Act (AsylG). The definition and the legal consequences of safe countries of origin are specifically regulated in § 29a and Annex II of the Asylum Act. Accordingly, safe countries of origin are countries where, based on the political situation, the legal situation, and the general circumstances, it is ensured that neither persecution under the Geneva Refugee Convention nor inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment occurs.
The specific list of safe countries of origin is determined by law or regulation and is regularly reviewed and updated. This process adheres to rule-of-law principles and takes into account the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court and European law requirements.
European legal requirements
At the European level, the concept of safe countries of origin is governed by the EU Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU (Article 36). Member States can designate countries as safe countries of origin if they meet the criteria set out in the directive. The list maintained in Germany must be aligned with these requirements, while a joint list across Europe is also being pursued.
Impact on the asylum procedure
Accelerated procedure
If an applicant comes from a country designated as safe, their asylum application is processed in an accelerated procedure (§ 29a AsylG). Authorities generally assume that the application is to be rejected as manifestly unfounded, unless the applicant can individually substantiate and credibly demonstrate that, contrary to the general assumption, he or she personally faces persecution.
Reversal of the burden of proof
A major legal consequence of the classification is the so-called reversal of the burden of proof. Applicants themselves must provide substantial evidence and indications showing that they face an individual threat in their country of origin. This significantly complicates recognition as an eligible person for protection.
Legal remedies and interim legal protection
In the event of a rejection as manifestly unfounded, legal remedies for applicants from safe countries of origin are restricted. An appeal against a negative decision usually has no suspensive effect. The legal remedies to be taken (e.g., application for interim legal protection) must be filed within one week and require special justification.
Criteria for determining safe countries of origin
Assessment of the human rights situation
The inclusion of a state as a safe country of origin requires an overall assessment of the political, legal, and general circumstances there, particularly regarding respect for human rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Refugee Convention. For example, the following are considered:
- Functioning state structures and legal protection mechanisms
- Democratic constitutional order
- No systemic protection gap for certain population groups
- General absence of political persecution and inhuman treatment
Legislative process and political oversight
The decision to include or remove a country from the list of safe countries of origin can only be made by law. The Bundestag is involved and the Bundesrat must give its consent.
Individual case orientation as a rule-of-law principle
Despite the list regulation, individual case examination is preserved in the asylum process: Individual dangers or special circumstances must also be examined in the procedure for applicants from safe countries of origin.
Case law and oversight
Federal Constitutional Court
The Federal Constitutional Court has repeatedly clarified the requirements and constitutional limits when defining safe countries of origin, in particular with regard to ensuring effective legal protection and safeguarding the individual fundamental right to asylum under Article 16a GG. The listing must not lead to individual cases being inappropriately disregarded.
European jurisdiction
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) also monitor whether the regulations comply with European law and international protection standards.
Critical discussion and further development
The classification of countries as safe countries of origin is regularly the subject of political and legal debates. Critics argue that the blanket presumption of safety does not always sufficiently protect minorities or particularly vulnerable groups. Regular reviews and rule-of-law correction mechanisms are therefore an integral part of the system.
Current list of safe countries of origin (Germany, as of 2024)
The current list includes, in particular, countries of the Western Balkans (including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia) as well as Ghana and Senegal. Expansions or changes are continuously assessed on the basis of political developments.
Literature and further regulations
- Asylum Act (AsylG)
- EU Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU)
- Geneva Refugee Convention
- European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
- Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court
- Case law of the European Court of Justice
The term “safe country of origin” is therefore a central instrument in the assessment of asylum applications and has a substantial impact on the course of proceedings, the legal remedies available, and the granting of protection in asylum procedures. Its legal structure is primarily guided by the safeguarding of effective fundamental rights protection and the international obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union.
Frequently asked questions
Does the classification as a safe country of origin automatically serve as the decisive factor for the rejection of an asylum application?
No, the designation of a state as a safe country of origin according to § 29a of the Asylum Act (AsylG) does not automatically lead to the rejection of an asylum application, but only establishes a legal presumption that no persecution is to be feared in the country of origin. The application of a person from such a state is handled using the so-called “accelerated procedure,” which means a shortened processing period, faster decisions, and restrictions on residence possibilities, such as access to the labor market. Applicants can rebut the legal presumption by credibly demonstrating that they are, in the individual case, at risk of political persecution or face violations of human rights (the so-called “individual case examination”). Thus, despite coming from a country considered safe, the individual’s hearing and decision in the asylum procedure remain guaranteed.
Which states are currently considered safe countries of origin and what criteria are used to classify them?
The list of safe countries of origin is set out in Annex II to § 29a AsylG and is determined by the legislator on the basis of an extensive examination. The current safe countries of origin include, among others, the Member States of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ghana, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Senegal, and Serbia. The classification is based on an overall assessment of whether, in the respective country—generally and permanently—there is neither persecution within the meaning of the Geneva Refugee Convention nor torture, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The Federal Government regularly reviews, with reference to situational and human rights reports and recommendations from international organizations, whether the criteria are still met. Changes or additions to the list require a legislative amendment.
How is the individual submission of an asylum seeker from a safe country of origin examined?
Even if a country of origin is classified as safe, the Asylum Act requires an individual examination of each asylum application. The statutory presumption of safety can be rebutted if the applicant puts forward relevant, specific reasons for persecution or for a risk to life, limb, or liberty in the country of origin in a substantiated and plausible manner. This may particularly be the case if the alleged grounds for persecution relate to particular characteristics (e.g., sexual orientation, religion, political conviction) or to exceptional regional situations in the country of origin. The burden of proof for rebutting the legal presumption lies fully with the applicant.
What legal remedies are available if an asylum application from a safe country of origin is rejected?
If an asylum application is rejected as “manifestly unfounded” due to origin from a safe country, the legal remedies are limited. An action against the negative decision does not have suspensive effect (§ 36 AsylG). Applicants can file a lawsuit with the administrative court and at the same time apply for the suspensive effect within one week. The court reviews both applications—the lawsuit and the urgent appeal—in terms of content, but mainly focuses on the credibility of an individual risk situation. Further legal remedies (appeal or revision) are generally excluded if the court denies the lawsuit as unfounded.
What are the effects of classification as a safe country of origin on accommodation and residence requirements?
Asylum seekers from countries classified as safe are required to remain in a reception center until the conclusion of their asylum procedure. This obligation may extend up to six months or until departure (§ 47 AsylG). During this stay, affected individuals are subject to restricted freedom of movement (residence requirement) and numerous legal restrictions, for example in access to social benefits or the labor market. The aim of these regulations is to accelerate the application process and to ensure immediate enforcement of an obligation to leave following rejection of the application.
Can the status of a safe country of origin be subject to judicial review?
The classification of a country as safe is based on a formal legislative process and cannot be challenged in individual cases before administrative courts. However, it is possible, within the context of a specific asylum procedure, to argue that the requirements for considering the country as safe do not apply individually, for instance due to specific group-based persecution or current developments (e.g., political upheaval, violent conflicts). New situations in the country of origin may create a need for review by the legislator; however, courts can only examine whether, in the individual case, the legal presumption of freedom from persecution has been refuted.
Are there exceptions to the legal consequences of the safe countries of origin rule?
Yes, exceptions are possible in particular for minors and especially vulnerable persons. Under the so-called “vulnerability principle,” for example, unaccompanied minor refugees, survivors of torture or human trafficking, and seriously ill individuals are subject to special protection standards. In these cases, the accelerated procedure may be suspended or extended, and deportation postponed until the situation is clarified. The fundamental rights, especially the requirement for effective legal protection and the prohibition on returning someone to a country where there is danger to life and limb (non-refoulement), apply without restriction.
