A systematic removal of rights for journalists seeking safety in Europe through the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)
Introduction
Two months after the new Pact on Migration and Asylum came into effect in the EU, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) has analysed its initial effects on journalists fleeing persecution and seeking safety in the EU. While the full impact of these laws will become clearer as EU Member States transpose them into national legislation, this paper outlines ECPMF’s preliminary observations and concerns based on the text of the reform and early implementation trends.
Adopted in 2024 and fully applied starting 12 June 2026, the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is a major overhaul of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), comprising ten regulations and directives. It aims to create a common approach to asylum across the European Union and was supported by a broad political spectrum across the EU. However, civil society organisations have warned that this deal effectively buries the right to asylum by preventing access to fair procedures and represents a dismantling of refugee protection.
Journalists and media workers forced to flee their home countries due to their work face immense challenges in finding safety. Pathways to Europe are already few, inconsistent, and increasingly inaccessible. Once journalists reach exile, they should be met with protection in a region that professes to uphold press freedom and human rights. Instead, the new CEAS reform creates additional barriers. While the reform theoretically expands categories for “vulnerable” persons, it simultaneously introduces mechanisms that systematically strip asylum seekers of their rights. Crucially, journalists and human rights defenders are not recognised as specific, vulnerable groups, leaving them exposed to procedures that fail to account for their unique risks.
Within this hostile climate, the voices of those fleeing persecution are increasingly marginalised. Finding the needed safety and resources to continue working becomes almost impossible. For journalists who rely on freedom of expression and movement to document truth and hold power accountable, this political shift poses an existential threat.
Analysis of Key Risks
Externalisation and the threat of unsafe returns
The new CEAS reform significantly strengthens the EU’s capacity for externalisation – the practice of outsourcing asylum processings and responsibility to non-EU countries. Under these agreements, the EU pays third countries to process asylum seekers, often in conditions that do not meet international standards for refugee protection. Central to this is the introduction of “Return Hubs” – facilities in non-EU countries where people whose asylum claims have been denied can be sent to if they cannot be deported to their country of origin. This might happen if their home country refuses to take them back, if the EU country seeking to deport them has no diplomatic relations with the country of origin, or if the person’s identity cannot be verified.
Another critical component of this strategy is the designation of more “Safe Countries of Origin (SCOs)” and “Safe Third Countries”. Under the new rules, nationals from countries deemed safe face faster reviews and easier returns. The EU has recently designated Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia as safe countries of origin. According to Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, many of these nations rank poorly due to documented imprisonment, harassment, and violence against journalists. Labeling these countries as safe ignores the reality that journalists fleeing them are escaping persecution. Returning a journalist to those countries exposes them to immediate danger, contradicting the EU’s own criteria that a country may only be designated as a SCO where it can be shown that no persecution and no real risk of serious harm exist. Furthermore, the “Safe Third Country” concept allows EU Member States to reject an asylum application if the applicant has a connection to a non-EU country considered safe, transited through this country before reaching the EU, or if there is an agreement with the country containing safeguards for the asylum seekers transferred there. This is distinct from the Dublin regulation, which applies to transfers within the EU. It means that the “Return Hub” model facilitates deportations to third countries with no guarantee of due process and with people being brought to places they have no connection to at all.
The reform legalises and expands the practice of transferring responsibility away from EU territory. The focus shifts from safeguarding rights to managing borders.
Isolation through restrictive accommodation models and barriers to labour market access
The new CEAS reform expands restrictive accommodation models, including detention-like facilities and isolated reception centres. A notable example is the “Secondary Migration Centres” in Germany, which isolate asylum seekers from broader society and limit their freedom of movement, raising serious constitutional and human rights concerns. Similar structures, such as “Closed Controlled Access Centres (CCACs)” in Greece which have been reportedly criticised for their inhumane conditions are now being expanded across the EU under CEAS guidelines.
For exiled journalists, this isolation is professionally and psychologically devastating. Their work relies on connectivity, networking, and access to support and independent media hubs. Confinement in remote or restrictive centres cuts them off from colleagues, sources, and psychosocial support, effectively silencing them even before their asylum claims are resolved. Long-term isolation also exacerbates trauma and mental health issues, especially for people who have been subjected to imprisonment and torture in the past. The isolation is breaking support networks that are critical for journalists’ safety and wellbeing and prevents journalists from fleeing emerging threats in their current location.
The reform strengthens the Dublin regulation, which determines which EU country is responsible for processing an asylum claim. For journalists affected by this regulation, this means being stuck in the first country of entry, even if that country cannot provide the protection they need. This is particularly problematic as states may lack the capacity or political will to properly assess cases involving transnational threats.
The CEAS reform not only imposes stricter restrictions on freedom of movement, it also delays access to the labour market for asylum seekers. Although the revised directive officially limits the waiting period for labour market access from nine to six months, this right is often neutralised in practice by physical isolation. Under the new directive, asylum applicants may be confined to specific regions or centres for extended periods, cutting them off from job markets.
For journalists, mobility is essential to their profession. Restrictions prevent them from traveling for interviews, attending press conferences, or collaborating with international newsrooms. Confinement to specific locations prevents them from legally resuming their work, leading to financial instability and loss of professional skills. This not only impacts their livelihood but also deprives global audiences of vital reporting from within authoritarian regimes, undermining press freedom as well as the right to seek, receive and impart information.
The failure of (vulnerability) screenings
The new CEAS reform introduces mandatory screening procedures for all arrivals, checking identity, security, and vulnerability before an asylum claim is registered. This framework primarily defines vulnerability through physical, medical, or age-related criteria (e.g. unaccompanied minors, survivors of torture, pregnant women). While it includes some positive elements in theory, such as expanded vulnerability categories – including recognition of LGBTIQ+ individuals and applicants with PTSD, it does not adequately account for vulnerabilities arising from professional profile, political activism, or exposure to Transnational Repression (TNR). Additionally, screenings are often conducted by security authorities rather than independent bodies, focusing on potential security threats rather than protection needs.
Because journalists are not recognised as a specific vulnerable category, they do not benefit from tailored protections such as accelerated positive processing, specialised housing, or immediate access to legal aid. This means that a journalist fleeing threats may be exposed to standard procedural risks that could lead to unsafe outcomes.
For certain groups accelerated border procedures apply. Under the new CEAS reform, this is mandatory for applicants from countries with an EU-wide recognition rate of 20% or less. These procedures group people together based on nationality statistics rather than focusing on individual risk situations. Critically, border procedures operate under a legal fiction of “non-entry”, meaning people are treated as if they have not entered EU territory, even when they physically have. This allows for detention and fast-track rejections without full consideration of their protection needs, raising serious concerns about access to fair procedures.
For journalists fleeing because their work has put them under threat, rushed procedures are particularly dangerous. Their cases often involve nuanced threats, such as targeted surveillance, digital harassment, or threats to family members back home, which require careful examination. Accelerated processes frequently fail to capture these complexities, increasing the risk of unsafe returns.
Legislative gaps regarding Transnational Repression (TNR)
The new CEAS reform does not explicitly recognise Transnational Repression (TNR) as a distinct ground for protection – a critical gap given that CEAS procedures are designed around static, territory-based assessments of risk. TNR against journalists in exile involves threats, surveillance, or violence against carried out by their home governments or proxies, often using digital tools and cross-border operations that continue to target individuals even after they reach EU territory. Current asylum frameworks largely rely on static country-of-origin information and assume that physical presence in the EU equates to safety, failing to account for this dynamic transnational nature of persecution.
Journalists are prime targets of TNR due to their visibility and influence. Without specific protocols, they may be deemed “safe”, ignoring ongoing digital surveillance, kidnapping plots, or coercion of family members abroad. This leaves them exposed to continued harm with no guaranteed emergency response mechanism. Classifying certain transit countries as safe also overlooks the fact that some of these countries offer no protection against TNR by the country of origin, while others have close ties to that country or exert significant influence there.
The failure to acknowledge TNR means that journalists cannot easily access protective measures tailored to high-risk profiles, leaving them vulnerable to attacks that standard asylum procedures are ill-equipped to address. Accelerated border procedures do not allow time to assess complex, ongoing threats that extend across borders.
Conclusion
The new CEAS reform represents a systematic removal of rights for refugees. It institutionalises deterrence, detention, and externalisation while failing to address the specific needs of journalists fleeing persecution.
The EU cannot claim to uphold press freedom while creating a system that returns journalists to persecution, isolates them from support networks, and denies them adequate protection. As of August 2026, the precise implications of the reform remain insufficiently defined, compounded by a system not yet fully aligned across EU Member States and malfunctioning information-sharing mechanisms. Given the non-transparent nature of its implementation, continued monitoring is essential.
However, the direction is clear, and several critical gaps must be addressed to align asylum policy with the protection of human rights and press freedom. There is an urgent need for independent human rights impact assessments to evaluate the consequences of the reform before full implementation, particularly regarding the designation of “safe” countries, which have poor records on press freedom. The current framework lacks recognition of Transnational Repression as a basis for protection, failing to acknowledge that danger follows journalists in exile even within the EU. It fails to implement accommodation policies that respect human dignity and freedom of movement.
Until these changes are reflected in practice, the CEAS poses a significant threat to the safety and effectiveness of media workers in exile. Dedicated protection mechanisms for journalists, including secure housing, psychological support, and the right to work and move freely are necessary to ensure they can safely continue their vital role in documenting truth and holding power accountable.
