The approval of the Commission's report requires a qualified majority: at least fifteen EU countries representing 65 percent of the EU population must agree. However, the political calculation is complicated because opinions strongly differ on the redistribution of asylum seekers and the amount of financial contributions.
The new law includes provisions allowing asylum applications to be submitted at EU offices outside the EU countries, and that asylum seekers (while awaiting the processing of their application) can be temporarily accommodated in reception centers outside EU borders. Last year, Italy attempted to do this itself, but it conflicts with the current EU arrangement and was overturned by EU courts.
The delay has led to criticism in the European Parliament. MEP Birgit Sippel, the lead negotiator of the migration pact, wants the Commission to be held accountable for missing the deadline. She has called for an urgent meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties to discuss the consequences of a possible postponement.
Tensions are also rising among the EU countries themselves. Poland and Hungary oppose the mandatory solidarity scheme, while Belgium announced that it will not take in new asylum seekers but will only contribute financially.
The Commission’s report is supposed to determine which EU countries are under migration pressure and how many asylum seekers need to be relocated ‘elsewhere.’ This EU analysis is based on the number of asylum applications, granted statuses, and available reception capacity.
Countries can choose how to contribute: by relocating asylum seekers from overloaded countries, paying €20,000 per non-relocated person, or co-financing operational support, for example for reception centers or administrative processing. This is laid down in the migration and asylum pact adopted in 2024.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has presented a new list of seven so-called “safe countries”: Kosovo, Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco, and Tunisia. As a result, applications from asylum seekers from those countries can be rejected more quickly and they can be returned to those countries.
Human rights organizations sharply criticize this list. According to groups such as EuroMed Rights, countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco are by no means safe due to serious human rights violations. However, the Commission maintains that the list does not restrict asylum seekers’ rights and is necessary for a harmonized European system.