Court of Justice of the European Union August 1, 2025 ECLI:EU:C:2025:591 Third country: Albania. Held in the Gjadër detention centre under the protocol between Italy and Albania, under which Albania made available two areas of its territory “which fall entirely within the competence of the Italian authorities” (paragraph 20). They applied for international protection there on 16 October 2024 (paragraph 21).
Disposition The Court (Grand Chamber) ruled that Articles 36 and 37 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, do not preclude a Member State “from designating third countries as safe countries of origin by means of a legislative act, provided that that designation can be subject to judicial review” by any court hearing an action against a decision taken under the special scheme for applicants from such countries; that the Member State must ensure “sufficient and adequate access” to the sources of information on which the designation is based, for the applicant and for the court, and that the court may take account of information it has gathered itself, provided that it is reliable and the adversarial principle is observed; and that Article 37 precludes a Member State “from designating as a safe country of origin a third country which does not satisfy, for certain categories of persons, the material conditions for such a designation”. The two cases go back to the Tribunale ordinario di Roma for decision.
LC and CP were rescued at sea by the Italian authorities and “taken to Albania, where they were placed in the Gjadër detention centre” (paragraph 20). On 17 October 2024 their applications were rejected under an accelerated border procedure “on the ground that LC and CP came from a safe country of origin”. “The detention orders were not validated by the court having jurisdiction and the applicants were, therefore, released” (paragraph 22). In Italy they challenged the decisions before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (paragraph 23).
Since Italy’s Decree-Law No 158/2024 of 23 October 2024, the list of safe countries of origin, which includes Bangladesh, has appeared in a legislative act rather than in an interministerial decree (paragraphs 18, 19 and 25). The Rome court was uncertain whether that designation was compatible with EU law, in the Court’s summary because it “stems from a legislative act, that the Italian legislature did not disclose its sources of information and that it maintained the option to make that designation even though that third country may not be ‘safe’ for certain categories of its population” (paragraph 39).
The Court of Justice held that designation by legislation is allowed only if a court can review it, that the sources behind it must be accessible, and that under the directive a country may be designated safe only if it is generally safe for its whole population: the directive expresses “the choice of the EU legislature to make the designation of a safe country of origin subject to the condition that the third country is generally safe for its entire population and not only for a part of it” (paragraph 96).
Safe country of origin
Border procedure
Accelerated procedure
Offshore processing
Effective remedy
Judicial review
Detention
Caution A preliminary ruling interprets EU law; the Tribunale ordinario di Roma decides the two cases. The Court did not decide whether Bangladesh is safe. Its third point applies Directive 2013/32. Regulation 2024/1348, which applies to applications lodged from 12 June 2026, allows a designation “with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons”, and the Court said it was for the EU legislature to choose when that rule takes effect (paragraphs 15, 17, 106 and 107). The case concerns the designation applied in the centres in Albania, not detention there; the opinions of two Advocates General on detention in the centres are reported in the Coalition’s story of 11 June 2026.
European Court of Human Rights June 14, 2022 Third country: Rwanda, under the asylum partnership arrangement in the memorandum of understanding the United Kingdom entered into with Rwanda on 13 April 2022. He was served with removal directions to Rwanda for 14 June 2022, on a charter flight due to leave at 22:30 (BST) that evening (press releases ECHR 197 (2022) and ECHR 199 (2022)).
Disposition On 14 June 2022 the Court decided “in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Government of the United Kingdom, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings.” On 3 October 2024 a Committee struck the application out of the list after the applicant said that he wished to withdraw it “as he had been afforded access to the United Kingdom asylum system” (decision notified on 24 October 2024).
On 24 May 2022 he was served with a notice that the authorities were considering treating his asylum claim as inadmissible and relocating him to Rwanda. On 27 May 2022 a doctor at the immigration removal centre issued a report “indicating that the applicant might have been a victim of torture”. On 6 June 2022 he was told that his claim had been deemed inadmissible. The High Court refused interim relief, though it accepted that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was irrational or based on insufficient enquiry raised serious triable issues; an appeal was dismissed on 13 June, and the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on 14 June 2022 (press release ECHR 197 (2022)).
The Court had regard to the concerns of UNHCR that asylum seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda “will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status”, and to the High Court’s finding. It decided: “In light of the resulting risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts, the Court has decided to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have had the opportunity to first consider those issues.”
Five other people due on the same flight applied to the Court that day. It stayed the removal of R.M. and H.N. until 20 June 2022 to consider their requests in more detail; it rejected two requests “as those applicants had not made use of the suspensive remedies available before the national courts”; and one request was withdrawn after the Home Office withdrew the removal directions (press release ECHR 199 (2022)). The stays for R.M. and H.N., which concerned Iranian and Vietnamese asylum seekers, were not extended and expired (press release ECHR 112 (2023)). The Court of Appeal later recorded that NSK, RM and HTN were granted interim measures and that “The practical consequence was that no removals to Rwanda have yet taken place” ([2023] EWCA Civ 745, paragraph 17).
On 24 June 2022 the Government asked the Court to lift the measure. The Court confirmed it on 1 July 2022, because the material the Government presented did not satisfy it that he “could and would be returned to the United Kingdom” if his legal proceedings succeeded. On 19 December 2022 the High Court held the Rwanda arrangement lawful in principle but quashed the decisions in his case, because the Home Secretary had not given adequate reasons for treating his asylum claim as inadmissible and the decision refusing his human rights claim had not considered the evidence he put forward; an order of 16 January 2023 formally quashed them. The Court then informed the parties that the measure “ceased to have effect on 6 February 2023, being three weeks after the individual decisions in N.S.K.’s case were formally quashed” (press release ECHR 112 (2023)).
The complaint under Article 3 was communicated to the Government on 5 April 2023, with the question whether he could still claim to be a victim, given that he “cannot be removed to Rwanda without the Home Secretary reconsidering the decisions in his case”. The Court never decided it: on 2 September 2024 he told the Court that he wished to withdraw the application, and it was struck out.
Interim measures
Third-country removal
Safe third country
Offshore processing
Article 3 ECHR
Judicial review
Caution An interim measure is not a judgment. In the Court’s words, measures under Rule 39 “are decided in connection with proceedings before the Court, without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case”. The measure, its reasons and its end are known from the Court’s press releases and its communication of the case, which quote the decisions; press releases state that they do not bind the Court. The Court’s documents give two different years of birth for him, so this entry gives none. The domestic courts later held the Rwanda policy unlawful: see the entries for the Court of Appeal (29 June 2023) and the Supreme Court (15 November 2023).