Regular procedure

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

General (scope, time limits)

According to data published by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum,^[1] the total number of pre-registrations of (first time) asylum claims (“registered intentions”) by 23 June 2023 was 10,756, a 13.32% increase compared to the first half of 2022 (9,491).^[2] A total of 57,891 (first time) applications for asylum were lodged before the Asylum Service in 2023, a significant increase of 98.95% compared to the 29,097 applications lodged in 2022.^[3]

According to article 88(3) Asylum Code, an asylum application should be examined “the soonest possible” and, in any case, within six months of lodging, in the context of the regular procedure. This time limit may be extended for a period not exceeding three months, in cases where a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously apply for international protection. In any event, as per the same article, the examination of the application should not exceed 21 months.

Where no decision is issued within the maximum time limit fixed in each case, the asylum seeker has the right to request information from the Asylum Service on the timeframe within which a decision is expected to be issued. As expressly foreseen in the Asylum Code, ‘this does not constitute an obligation on the part of the Asylum Service to issue a decision within a specific time limit.’^[4]

Applicants who are recognised as refugees are given only an excerpt of the relevant decision, which does not include the decision’s reasoning. According to the Asylum Code, in order for the entire decision to be delivered to the individual recognised as a beneficiary of international protection, a special legitimate interest (ειδικό έννομο συμφέρον) must be proven.^[5]

Duration of procedures

In 2022, significant delays during the processing of applications at first instance were evident when considering the total number of pending applications in proportion to the time they were pending, with more than 1 in 5 applications registered in previous years still pending at the end of 2022. Namely, according to the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, a total of 17,249 applications were pending by 31 December 2022.^[6] Of these, 4,134 (23.74%) had been pending for a period of over 12 months since the day they were registered, 2,334 (13.53%) were pending for a period of over 6 months and 10,781 (62.50%) were pending for a period of under 6 months.^[7]

The extent to which such delays are still pertinent in 2023 is not possible to assess, as data on the duration of the procedure at first instance has not been provided by the MoMA, even though GCR has requested it. Instead, following the latest such request sent by GCR in January 2024, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/  [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”. However, a closer look at the public sources referenced by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available, while the marked 73% increase in the number of applications pending in December 2023 (29,885), compared to the same month in 2022 (17,249), is by itself an insufficient indicator of the procedure’s duration.

That being said, ongoing delays of months and in some cases of even more than a year in the conduct of asylum interviews on account of gaps in the provision of interpretations services were reported at least in Malakasa RIC and Ritsona camp in March 2024, with the gaps also impacting on applicants’ ability to communicate their needs with the camp’s staff.^[8]

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

The Asylum Code sets out two forms of prioritized examination of asylum applications.

Firstly, the Asylum Service shall process “by way of absolute priority”, claims concerning:

• Applicants undergoing reception and identification procedures who do not comply with an order to be transferred to another reception facility, if their non-compliance hinders the smooth completion of the examination procedure;^[9]
• Applicants who are detained.^[10]

In accordance with articles 46(c) and 50(8) Asylum Code, processing by way of “absolute priority” means the examination procedure needs to be concluded within 20 days, albeit articles 42(γα) and 88(7) Asylum Code, both of which cite the preceding articles, mention a 15-day deadline for the same purpose, highlighting an inconsistency in the law.

Secondly, the law provides that an application may be registered and examined by way of priority for persons who:^[11]

• Belong to vulnerable groups, insofar as they are under a “restriction of liberty” measure in the context of Reception and Identification procedures;
• Fall under the scope of the Border Procedure;
• Are likely to fall within the Dublin Procedure;
• Have cases which may be considered as manifestly unfounded;
• Represent a threat to national security or public order; or
• File a Subsequent Application;
• Come from a First Country of Asylum or a Safe Third Country;
• Have cases reasonably believed to be well-founded.

From 2014 up until the first half of 2021, Syrians and stateless persons were eligible to a fast-track procedure examining their cases and often resulting in the granting of refugee status. This also applied to those who formerly resided in Syria who could provide original documents such as passports, or who had been identified as Syrians/persons with a former residence in Syria within the scope of the Reception and Identification Procedure, provided that the EU-Türkiye Statement and the fast-track border procedure did not apply to their cases.^[12] The specific fast-track procedure (examination in the merits) is still applicable to this day, though admissibility proceedings may precede it.

However, Joint Ministerial Decision 458568/2021, issued in December 2021 under Article 86 IPA, designated Türkiye as a safe country for applicants from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Somalia.^[13] This was reinforced by Joint Ministerial Decision no. 538595/2023, issued on December 15, 2023, on the “Determination of third countries characterised as safe and establishing of a national list as defined in article 91 of Law 4939/2022.”^[14] As a result, applications lodged by those falling under the provisions of the aforementioned JMDs  are since firstly channelled through the admissibility procedure to assess whether Türkiye is a safe third country and whether their cases are admissible and should be examined on the merits (for more details, see also Safe Third Country).

Personal interview

According to the Asylum Code, the personal interview with the applicant may be omitted where:^[15]

• The Asylum Service is able to take a positive decision on the basis of available evidence.
• It is not practically feasible, in particular when the applicant is declared by a medical professional as unfit or unable to be interviewed due to enduring circumstances beyond their control.

Moreover, the law foresees that when the applicant is not in a position to continue the interview for reasons attributable to him/her, “the interview is terminated”. In this case, the applicant is provided with the opportunity to submit a written memo and supplementary evidence within five days.^[16] According to the Asylum Code, the omission of a personal interview does not adversely affect the in-merits decision on the application, in which the reasons for omitting the interview should be stated.^[17]

The Asylum Code further provides that, where the interview has been scheduled within 15 days from the lodging of the application and where the applicant is vulnerable, the authorities provide him or her with reasonable time not exceeding three days to prepare for the interview and obtain counselling. The possibility to request reasonable time is not granted to asylum seekers who are not vulnerable or whose interview has been scheduled more than 15 days after the submission of the application.^[18]

Under the regular procedure, the interview takes place at the premises of the RAO on the designated day and is conducted by one caseworker. The personal interview of adult asylum seekers takes place without the presence of the applicant’s family members, unless the competent Asylum Service Officer considers their presence necessary.^[19] Moreover, the personal interview must take place under conditions that ensure appropriate confidentiality.^[20]

However, GCR and other civil society organisations have expressed concerns relating to confidentiality in certain RAO or AAU due to the lack of appropriate spaces, lack of isolation and technical difficulties. For example, and as reported, this was the case in the RAO of Lesvos,  where registrations and interviews were carried out with the doors of the case workers’ offices open, in breach of the principle of confidentiality.^[21]

The person conducting the interviews should be sufficiently qualified to take into account the personal or general circumstances regarding the application, including the applicant’s cultural origin. In particular, the interviewer must be trained on the special needs of women, children and victims of violence and torture.^[22] In case of female applicants, the applicant can request a case worker/interpreter of the same sex. If this is not possible, a note is added to the transcript of the interview.^[23]

The EUAA’s role in the regular procedure

Following the amendments introduced by L 4540/2018, which were maintained in the Asylum Code,^[24] the EUAA (formerly EASO) can be involved in the regular procedure.^[25] EUAA personnel providing services at the Asylum Service premises are bound by the Asylum Service Rules of Procedure.^[26] The main form of support provided by EUAA caseworkers includes the conduct of interviews with applicants and the drafting of opinions to the Asylum Service, which retains responsibility for issuing a decision on the asylum application. The personnel involved in the regular procedure should be Greek-speaking case workers.^[27]

In 2023, the number of interviews carried out by EUAA caseworkers in Greece continued to decrease, compared to previous years, to interviews in the asylum cases of 7,272 applicants. Of these, 77% related to the top 10 citizenships of applicants interviewed by the EUAA, in particular Somalis (1,620), Afghans (687), Pakistanis (592) and Eritrean (538).^[28] The number of concluding remarks issued by EUAA decreased to 776 in 2023, a significant drop compared to 2022 (5,071). This is due to the fact that, following the June 2021 Joint Ministerial Decision designating Turkey as a safe third country for applicants from five of the most common countries of origin in Greece, the drafting of concluding remarks by EUAA caseworkers is no longer required for a large share of cases, that is those examined on admissibility.^[29]

Relevant data on the role of the EUAA in the asylum procedure (conduct of interviews, drafting of opinions and/or concluding remarks etc) were not provided by the MoMA. Specifically, following the relevant request sent by GCR in January 2024, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”. Yet a closer look at the public sources referred by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available.

Interviews conducted through videoconferencing

In GCR’s experience, interviews continued to be regularly conducted through video conferencing in 2023, either with the interviewer or the interpreter (or often both) participating through digital tools. This was particularly the case for applicants residing in camps on the mainland, who were interviewed without having to leave the camp, as well as in certain RAOs with certain interviewers being based in other RAOs. There have also been some cases where the interview was conducted remotely though telephone rather than through video conferencing.

At the beginning of the interview, the caseworker requests the applicant’s consent for the use of videoconferencing to carry out the interview. The applicant gives their consent orally, which is recorded both in the audio recording of the interview as well as in the written transcript. However, applicants were not informed about possible consequences in case of refusal to use digital tools, such as rescheduling the interview at a later date. Other issues arising from the use of digital tools include technical issues such as poor internet connection and inadequate sound quality. Even under the best of conditions, video conferencing may negatively affect the quality of the interpretation and possibly the interview due to the loss of non-verbal communication cues.

Recognition rates, quality of interviews and decisions

The Asylum Service handed down a total of 32,529 in-merit decisions in 2023:^[30]

Source: Ministry of Migration and Asylum

While recognition rates at first instance remain high (in terms of in-merit decisions), a number of first instance cases demonstrate the persistence of long-standing concerns vis-à-vis the “deterioration in quality at first instance”, inter alia due to the way in which interviews were conducted, the assessment of the asylum claims and/or the decisions delivered.”^[31]

Examples of such cases in 2023 include:

• The case of a conscientious objector from the Russian Federation, whose application was rejected despite the fact that the asylum service accepted as true both that he was eligible for conscription as well as his long-standing moral, political and religious reasons for refusing to be enlisted to fight. His claim was rejected solely on the fact that to his knowledge he had yet to be sent a call for conscription. Essentially saying that since his fear of persecution had not yet materialized at the time of flight it could not be considered well founded in the context of the examination of his asylum application.^[32]
• The case of an unaccompanied trans minor from Pakistan whose claims of persecution due to their gender identity were dismissed on credibility grounds. The decision demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the concept of gender identity and sexual orientation. It should also be noted that although the interview was conducted by EUAA staff, the decision was issued by an asylum service employee who had no contact with the applicant.^[33]

The case of a single-parent family of Arabic decent from Iraq. The case worker rejected the mother’s claims of fearing for her own safety as well as the safety of her two minor children from her former husband’s family due to her separation from him and her conversion to Christianity, as inadmissible citing inter alia sources completely irrelevant to their situation, specifically pertaining to the prevalence of honor crimes among Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan.^[34]

Interpretation

The law envisages that interpretation is provided to applicants both during the registration of their asylum request as well as during their interview at first and second instance.^[35] In accordance with an amendment to the IPA adopted in May 2020 as well as the codification of the relevant legislation in the Asylum Code, in case interpretation in the language of the choice of the applicant is unavailable, interpretation is provided in the official language of the country of origin or in a language that the applicant may reasonably be expected to understand.^[36]

Interpretation for registrations of asylum requests, as well as interviews before the authorities is provided both by interpreters of the NGO METAdrasi and EUAA interpreters, yet challenges were reported in 2023.

Namely, on 30 October 2023,^[37] METAdrasi issued an announcement stating it had been forced to reduce by 80% its staff of 300 qualified interpreters in 63 languages inter alia supporting the work of the Greek Asylum Service (GAS), on account of a six-month delay in receiving due payments for services provided to the GAS. In the same announcement, METAdrasi also expressed its befuddlement over the delay, given the required funds had already been provided to the Greek state by the European Commission.

Two days later, on 1 November, the organisation issued a further announcement, stating that it had started “a race” for the re-employment of interpreters whose contracts had ended in October, following reassurances received by the Minister of Migration and Asylum that the funding gap would be speedily resolved.^[38] Yet despite these reassurances, the issue remained unresolved, at least up to 15 January 2024, when the organisation stressed it had yet to receive a single euro for services provided to the MoMA over an 8-month period, and was thus yet again faced with the need to “drastically reduce” its staff of interpreters, even though the amounts due were earmarked and had already been provided by the EC to the Greek Ministry of Finance for this purpose.^[39] Lastly, on 14 May 2024, the organisation announced that following the cessation of the provision of interpretation services in the asylum procedures on 6 May, it would also move forward with the cessation of interpretation services throughout Greece’s camps, on account of the expiration and delays in the timely renewal of the contracts it had signed with the MoMA, while once more noting that it had yet to receive due payments for the services provided by its interpreters in the previous months.[40] Following these developments, on 17 May 2024, the MoMA issued its own announcement, noting interpretation gaps had been addressed with the support of EUAA personnel and referring to delays, from the side of METAdrasi NGO, in presenting the necessary documents provided by law in order to sign a new contract, as the designated provider of interpretation services.[41]

As regards remote interpretation, its use continued to be observed frequently and was not limited to remote RAOs and AAUs, that may not have a sufficient number of interpreters.

Technical deficiencies and constraints should be taken into consideration when assessing the quality of remote interpretation. When it comes to rare languages, if no interpreter is available to conduct a direct interpretation from that language to Greek (or English in cases examined by EUAA case workers), more interpreters might be involved in the procedure to translate through different languages.

Lastly, inaccuracies and mistakes in interpretation, including in the context of asylum interviews, with the potential to negatively influence the perceived credibility of applicants and thus their asylum case, were reported in March 2024.^[42]

Recording and transcript

The Asylum Code provides for the audio recording of the personal interview. A detailed report is drafted for every personal interview, which includes the applicants’ main arguments and all the essential elements of their claim. The audio recording of the interview accompanies the report. For interviews conducted by videoconference, audio recording is compulsory. When audio recording is not available, the report includes a full transcript of the interview and the applicant is invited to certify the accuracy of the content of the report by signing it, with the assistance of the interpreter who also signs it, where present.^[43] The applicant may at any time request a copy of the transcript, a copy of the audio file or both.^[44]

Notification of First Instance Decisions

The IPA introduced the possibility for first instance decisions not to be communicated in person to the applicant (‘fictitious service’, πλασματική επίδοση) or the first instance decision to be communicated to the applicant by administrative authorities other than the Asylum Service. Both practices, maintained in the Asylum Code, significantly limit the possibility for the applicant to be informed about the issuance of the first instance decision and/or the content of said decision and/or the possibility to lodge an appeal. Consequently, deadlines for submitting an appeal against a negative first-instance decision may expire without the applicant being actually informed about the decision, for reasons not attributable to him/her. As the Greek Ombudsman has noted with regard to the provisions of fictitious service, said provisions effectively limit the access of asylum seekers to legal remedies.^[45]

More precisely, according to the Asylum Code, a first instance decision can be communicated:

• in person or;
• with a registered letter sent by the Asylum Service to the applicant or;
• by e-mail to the applicant or;
• by uploading the Decision on an electronic application managed by the Asylum Service, through which applicants have unique access through an account they maintain, or;
• by communicating the decision to authorised lawyers, consultants, and representatives.^[46] In this regard, it should be mentioned that according to the Aylum Code, once a lawyer is appointed by the applicant at any stage of the procedure, the lawyer is considered to be a representative of the applicant for all stages of the procedures, including the service of the decision regardless of the actual representation of the applicant at the time of the fictitious service unless the appointment of the lawyer is revoked by a written declaration of the applicant with an authenticated signature.^[47]

The deadline for lodging an appeal against a negative decision begins on the day following its fictitious service. However, when the service of the decision is taking place via electronic means, the deadline begins 48 hours after the dispatch of the electronic message.^[48] According to Art. 87(3) of the Asylum Code, together with the decision, a document in the language that the applicant understands or in a language that they may reasonably be supposed to understand is also communicated to the applicant, which explains in simple language the content of decision, its consequences and actions he/she may pursue. Alternatively, a link to the webpage of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum where relevant information is provided is included in the document.

If the applicant resides in a Reception and Identification Centre or is detained in a detention facility, the decision is sent to the Head of the RIC or of the Detention facility, who shall ensure that a notice of receipt, as well as the times of delivery and distribution of the documents to applicants for each working day and time, is posted immediately in visible areas of the premises and draws up an act of receipt and posting.   The deadline for lodging an appeal is three days after the act of receipt and posting has been drafted.^[49]

No force majeure reason has to be invoked in order for a decision to be fictitiously served. If the applicant cannot be found/contacted through one of the abovementioned means, and no lawyer has been appointed, the decision is served to the Head of the RAO/AAU of the Asylum Service or the head of the RIC or the detention facility, after which it is deemed that the applicant has been notified of the decision.^[50]

In practice, on the mainland, first instance decisions are mainly served to applicants by e-mail, through their legal representatives or more seldom by registered mail. In cases of electronic notification of first instance decisions, provision of legal aid for the appeals procedure can be requested either in person at the competent RAO or through the electronic platform of the Ministry for Migration and Asylum.^[51] If the latter is the only option, e.g., because the applicant lives far from the competent RAO, it significantly hinders their ability to appeal for those not familiar with the use of electronic applications or who do not have access to the required equipment/internet. Moreover, in practice, the notification of first instance decisions is also carried out by the Head of the RICs on the islands and in Evros and the Head of Pre-removal detention facilities in Athens (Amygdaleza and Tavros). In both cases, the inability of the applicants to understand the content of the communicated documents and the procedure they have to follow has been observed.

Appeal

Administrative review

Since the entry into force of the IPA on 1 January 2020, the Independent Appeals Committees are the sole administrative bodies competent for the examination of appeals lodged against first instance asylum decisions.

Establishment and Composition of the Independent Appeals Committees of the Appeals Authority

The legal basis for the establishment of the Appeals Authority was amended several times in recent years and has been further amended by the IPA.^[53] More precisely, following an amendment in 2016, the composition of the Appeals Authorities consisted of two active Administrative Judges in the new three-member Appeals Committees (Ανεξάρτητες Αρχές Προσφυγών) and a third member, holding a university degree in Law, Political or Social Sciences or Humanities with specialisation and experience in the fields of international protection, human rights or international or administrative law.^[54] According to the amendment introduced by the IPA, the three-member Appeals Committees are composed by three active Administrative Judges of First Instance Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal. Moreover, a single member/Judge Committee has been introduced.^[55]

These amendments have been highly criticised and issues of unconstitutionality have been raised due to the composition of the Committees inter alia by the Union of Administrative Judges,^[56] and the Union of Bar Associations.^[57] An application for Annulment with regards inter alia the compliance with the Greek Constitution of the single member/Judge Appeals Committee was filed by GCR before the Council of State in 2020. The hearing, initially set for 28 March 2023, has been scheduled following several postponements for 14 May 2024. GCR is aware of at least two occasions of postponement of a hearing of an annulment case before the First Instance Administrative Court, pending a decision by the Council of State under the pilot procedure which was triggered by the First Instance Administrative Court of Thessaloniki.^[58]

As mentioned above, Appeals Committees are composed of active Administrative judges of both First Instance and Administrative Courts of Appeal. However, following the entry into force of the IPA, the responsibility for the judicial review of the second instance decisions issued by the Appeals Committees has been attributed to the First Instance Administrative Courts and thus further issues of constitutionality may occur. In October 2020, the Council of State triggered its pilot procedure upon referral of three cases from the Administrative Court of Athens, supported by RSA, with a view to adjudicating on the constitutionality of the competence of Administrative Courts to judicially review decisions of the Appeals Committees, given that second instance decisions may be – and often are – taken by Committees composed by higher-court judges (Administrative judges of the Administrative Courts of Appeal).^[59]

In October 2021, the Council of State held by majority that the competence of First Instance Administrative Courts to judicially review decisions of the Appeals Committees, even in cases where the second instance decisions on asylum applications are taken by Committees composed by higher-court judges, is constitutional.^[60] Specifically, it considered that Appeals Committees are a “collective administrative body” which exercises “competences of a judicial function”, and that judges participate therein not as judicial officials but as “state officials – members of independent authorities of the executive”. First-instance Administrative Courts therefore judicially review decisions by executive bodies, not rulings by judicial officials. Accordingly, the judicial review carried out by lower judges of decisions taken by higher judges was not deemed contrary to the principle of judicial independence and impartiality.^[61]

The Appeals Authority consisted of 21 Independent Appeals Committees,^[62] which were reduced to 20 following JMD 109288/30.04.2024 (Gazette B’ 2602/01.05.2024).

EUAA (former EASO) role at second instance

Since 2017, the law foresees that “in case of a large number of appeals”, the Appeals Committees might be assisted by “rapporteurs” provided by EASO (now EUAA).^[63] These rapporteurs have access to the files and are entrusted with drafting a detailed and in-depth report, that will contain a record and statement of the facts of the case along with the main claims of the appellant, as well as a matching of said claims (αντιστοίχιση ισχυρισμών) with the country of origin information that will be presented before the competent Committee in order to decide.^[64] Both the IPA and the Asylum Code maintain the same tasks for “rapporteurs” provided by EASO.^[65] However, according to the IPA, this is not only foreseen “in case of a large number of appeals”. Articles 95(4) IPA and 100 (4) Asylum Code provides that each member of the Appeals Committee may be assisted by “rapporteurs” provided by EASO.

As of 31 December 2021, 20 Rapporteurs were assisting the Appeals Committees members pursuant to Art. 95(4) IPA.^[66] Since they are seconded to the individual Committees, these Rapporteurs are not supervised or line-managed by EASO/EUAA.^[67] Data on the number of Rapporteurs regarding 2023 has since not been provided by the MoMA, even though GCR has requested it on a yearly basis. Instead, following the latest such request sent by GCR in January 2024, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”^[68]. Yet a closer look at the public sources referred by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available.

Number of appeals and recognition rates at second instance

A total of 10,973 appeals were lodged against Asylum Service decisions throughout Greece in 2023, of which 10,013 on the mainland and 960 on the islands.^[69] The Independent Appeals Committees handed down a total of 13,032 decisions in 2023 (includes discontinuation, withdrawals, archived cases):^[70]

The table below includes decisions on both admissibility and merits, given no separate breakdown is provided with respect to postivie appeals decisions. Decisions of other type (e.g. discontinuation, withdrawals, archived cases) are not included in the table.

Source: Ministry of Migration and Asylum, Reply of the Ministry to the Greek Parliament, 23 February 2024, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/bdd5zkar, pp. 3-4.[71]

As in previous years,^[72] the recognition rate at second instance was exceptionally low at 6.59%, even lower than the 11.6% rate in 2022. Out of the total decisions, the rejection rate reached 93.43%, while the refugee recognition rate stood at 4.9 % and the subsidiary protection recognition rate at 1.66 %. The top 5 nationalities granted refugee status at second instance in 2023 were Afghanistan (31.73%), Gambia (20.41%), Ghana (18.39%), Siera Leone (18.07%) and Iraq (17.35%), while the bottom 5 nationalities whose recognition percentage was lower than 1% were India, Nepal, Georgia, Bangladesh and Pakistan^[73].

Out of the 5,037 decisions rejecting appeals as inadmissible, 30% (1,523) rejected them on the grounds that they had been filed after the deadline provided in the law.[74]

Time limits for lodging an Appeal before the Appeals Committees

An applicant may lodge an Appeal before the Appeals Committees against a first instance decision of the Asylum Service rejecting his or her application for international protection.^[75]

The appeal may be lodged against a decision rejecting the application as unfounded under the regular procedure or against the part of the decision that grants subsidiary protection. The deadline for submitting an appeal is 30 days from the notification of the decision or from the date he or she is presumed to have been notified thereof.^[76] The deadline is shortened to 20 days if the applicant was notified of the rejection decision while he was in detention.^[77]

Scope of the Appeal

According to Article102(10) Asylum Code, the Appeals Committees conduct a full and ex nunc examination of the asylum application.^[78] Based on legal precedents, Committees have the power to carry out their own assessment of the evidence and elements of the file.^[79] Contrary to this position, however, some Committees have declared themselves as lacking jurisdiction to examine issues such as the need of the applicant for special procedural guarantees, where the first instance authority concluded that he or she is not vulnerable.^[80]

Form of the Appeal

According to Article 98 Asylum Code, the appeal shall inter alia be submitted in a written form and mention the “specific grounds” on which the applicant relies to challenge the first instance decision. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the appeal will be rejected as inadmissible without an examination on the merits.

This provision has been largely criticised as it severely restricts access to the appeal procedure in practice, and appears to contradict EU law, namely Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights. The requirements set by Article 93 IPA and maintained by the Asylum Code, in practice, can only be fulfilled when a lawyer assists the applicant, which remains a challenge, considering the gaps in the provision of free legal aid. Namely, out of the total 10,973 appeals against first instance negative decisions sumbbited during 2023,[81]  legal aid was provided in less than two out of three cases (total of 6,892 cases or roughly 62% of cases).[82] As noted in previous years,[83] since it is unlikely that such a percentage of appellants (in this case 4,081 or roughly 38%) had either sufficient funds to secure a private lawyer and/ or access to free legal aid provided by NGOs, the aforementioned discrepancy highlights the ongoing difficulties that applicants face in accessing and securing state funded free legal aid at appeal stage as provided by law.

Accordingly, as stated by the UNHCR, “[i]n some circumstances, it would be so difficult to appeal against a rejection that the right to an effective remedy enshrined in international and EU law, would be seriously compromised”.^[84] Moreover, as noted “the obligation for the applicant to provide specific reasons instead of simply requesting the ex nunc examination of his/her application for international protection, does not seem to be in accordance with the [Asylum Procedural Directive]”.^[85]

In 2021, the number of the appeals rejected pursuant to Article 93 IPA doubled in comparison to 2020 (53 Decisions) yet still remained relatively low (110 Decisions) as the Appeals Committees interpreted said provision broadly and considered that even appeals written by the applicants in his/her native language and without mentioning “specific grounds” were admissibly lodged. More recent data concerning the number of appeals rejected pursuant to Article 93 IPA (currently 98 Asylum Code) was not provided, even though it was requested by GCR. Instead, following GCR’s relevant January 2024 request for information, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”.^[86] Yet a closer look at the public sources referenced by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available.

Suspensive effect

Appeals before the Appeals Authority had automatic suspensive effect in all procedures under the previous law. The IPA abolished the automatic suspensive effect for certain appeals,^[87] in particular those concerning applications rejected in the accelerated procedure or dismissed as inadmissible under certain grounds. The Asylum Code that came into force in the second half of 2022 has maintained these provisions. In such cases, the appellant may submit an application before the Appeals Committees, requesting their stay in the country until the second-instance appeal decision is issued. Suspensive effect covers the period “during the time limit provided for an appeal and until the notification of the decision on the appeal”.^[88]

More precisely, according to Article 110 of the Asylum Code,^[89] the appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect in case of an appeal against a first instance decision rejecting the application as inadmissible:

1. because another EU Member State has granted international protection status;
2. because another State, bound by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, has taken responsibility for the examination of the application for international protection, pursuant to the Regulation

• by virtue of the first country of asylum concept;

1. because the application is a subsequent application, in which no new elements or findings have been found during the preliminary examination; in case of an appeal against a second subsequent asylum application, and in a number of cases examined under the Accelerated Procedure.

In its report “Comments on the Draft Law of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum”, the National Commission for Human Rights remarked that, while the abolition of the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection is in principle in conformity with Union law, an appeal against a return or removal decision pursuant to Article 6 par. 6 or 8 par. 3 respectively of the Directive, should automatically have a suspensive effect as this decision may expose the third country national to a real risk of treatment contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.^[90] As further noted by FRA:

“If a return decision were to be implemented before a final decision on international protection, this would also undermine the right to asylum (Article 18 of the Charter) and the principle of non-refoulement (Article 19 of the Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR) as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR in their respective case law. Closely connecting or merging the two procedural steps must not lead to the reduction of safeguards which are necessary to ensure that Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter are not circumvented.”^[91]

The practice of the Appeals Committees in 2022 and 2023 showed that the requirement of a separate request for suspensive effect under Article 104(2) IPA and Article 110(2) Asylum Code has introduced a superfluous procedural step, as the Committees systematically dismiss requests for suspensive effect as having no object (άνευ αντικειμένου), after having issued a positive or negative decision on the merits of the appeal, since the abovementioned application is examined on the date of the hearing of the case and the relevant ruling is included in the decision issued upon the appeal..

In 2021, 4,653 requests were submitted to the Appeals Authority to stay in the country until the second-instance decision has been issued. During the reference period, the Appeals Authority issued 4,476 second instance decisions rejecting requests for suspensive effect and ordering the removal of the appellant.^[92] Relevant data for 2022 and 2023 was not provided.

Procedure before the Appeals Authority

Written procedure: As a rule, the procedure before the Appeals Committee is conducted in writing and the examination of the Appeal is based on the elements in the case file.^[93] The Appeals Committees shall invite the appellant to an oral hearing when:^[94]

• The appeal is lodged against a decision which withdraws the international protection status (see Cessation and Withdrawal);
• Issues or doubts are raised relating to the comprehensiveness of the appellant’s interview at first instance;
• The appellant has submitted substantial new elements

Under L 4375/2016, the appellant could also be invited to an oral hearing if the case presented particular complexities,^[95] which is no longer the case.

Data on the number of appellants invited to an oral hearing before the Appeals Committee have since not been provided by the MoMA, even though GCR has requested it on a yearly basis. Instead, following the latest such request sent by GCR in January 2024, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”.^[96] Yet a closer look at the public sources referred to by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available.

Article 105 IPA first provided for the prohibition of the Appeals Committee to revert a case back to the Asylum Service for a new first instance interview. This prohibition posed difficulties for cases which were rejected by the Asylum Service as inadmissible on Safe Third Country grounds. In such cases, rejected asylum seekers had only been interviewed at first instance on points relating to the “safe third country” concept and not on the merits of their claim. Appeals Committees did not adopt a consistent approach: while some ordered an oral hearing for the applicant to substantiate their application on the merits,^[97] others proceeded directly to an assessment of the case sur dossier. This resulted in grants of subsidiary protection to applicants on the basis that they did not meet the criteria for refugee status, even though they were never requested to provide information on their reasons for fleeing their country of origin, e.g., Syria.^[98] In 2021, 250 appellants were invited for an oral hearing before the Appeals Committees.^[99] Article 111 of the Asylum Code, whilst maintaining the prohibition on reverting cases back to the first instance, provides that in cases when the Appeals Committee considers it necessary to hold an interview, the interview shall be conducted by the Committee itself, in accordance with the provisions of Article 82.^[100] The Council of State held that the above provision on the prohibition of reverting cases back to the Asylum Service is compliant with the EU Directive 2013/32/EU, since the interview conducted by the Appeals Committee with the applicant ensures the respect of requirements and guarantees provided in the Directive for the personal interview^[101].

Obligation of the Appellant to be present before the Appeals Committees on the day of the examination: Despite the fact that the procedure before the Appeals Committees remains written without hearings as a rule, Articles 102(2) and 83(3) of the Asylum Code impose an obligation on the appellant to personally appear before the Appeals Committee on the day of the examination of their appeals on penalty of rejection of their appeal as “manifestly unfounded”.^[102] This is an obligation imposed on the appellant even if s/he has not been called for an oral hearing, though exceptions are provided where:

1. The appellant resides in a RIC or Accommodation Centre, in which case a written certification of the Head of the RIC or the Accommodation Centre can be sent to the Committee prior to the date of the examination, certifying that s/he remains there. This certification must have been issued no more than three days prior of the examination of the appeal.^[103]
2. A geographical limitation or an obligation to reside in a given place of residence has been imposed on the appellant, in which case a declaration signed by the appellant and authenticitised by the Police or the Citizens Service Centre (KEP), can be sent to the Appeals Committee, prior to the date of the examination. This authentication must have been issued no more than three days prior to the examination of the appeal.^[104]

In both cases, article 83(3)(β) Asylum Code provides that if the aforementioned certificates are not received by the Appeals Authority, the applicant shall be deemed to have implicitly withdrawn his/her appeal in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 Asylum Code. Alternatively, in both cases, the appellant’s lawyer or other authorised adviser can appear instead before the Committee on behalf of the appellant. This possibility is subject to the appellant having such an authorised representative.

Lastly, the appellant’s obligation to present themselves before the Appeals Authority is temporarily suspended in case of force majeure, such as serious illness or serious physical disability, which makes it impossible for the appellant to appear in person, for as long as the grounds constituting force majeure remain in effect. In such a case, the appellant must submit a request, citing in a concrete manner the grounds amounting to force majeure or insurmountable impediment which makes it impossible for them to appear in person, and must immediately substantiate their allegation through written evidence and relevant certificates or a certificate from a public authority. Where it is established that these grounds exist, and provided that the applicant appears in person before the competent authorities, the consequences of failure to appear are waived.^[105]

Evidently, these provisions impose an unnecessary administrative obligation (in-person appearance of the applicant/lawyer as well as transmission of extra certifications) and a disproportionate “penalty”, as the in-merits rejection of an appeal without examination of the substance raises serious concerns as to the effectiveness of the remedy and the principle of non-refoulement. This obligation, first imposed by the IPA and maintained by the Asylum Code, also disregards the criticism that the law on asylum “puts an excessive burden on asylum seekers and focuses on punitive measures. It introduces tough requirements that an asylum seeker could not reasonably be expected to fulfil”.^[106] As noted by UNHCR already since 2020, these provisions “are expected to have a negative impact on applicants’ access to the second instance and the proper examination of their appeal, and as such seriously undermine the right to an effective remedy”.^[107] The First Instance Administrative Tribunal of Thessaloniki filed a preliminary request before CJEU on whether the non-presence of the appellant before the Appeals Committees on the day of the examination of their appeal and the rejection thereof as “manifestly unfounded”, without a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, complies with the right to an effective remedy provided in the Article 46 of the Directive 2013/32/EU.^[108]

In 2023, 1,599 appeals were rejected as “manifestly unfounded” compared to 1,790 in 2022, without including in the above number the decisions rejecting the appeal as “manifestly unfounded” based on the safe country of origin concept. Currently, there is no available information as to whether these rejections were issued on the basis of provisions imposing the in-person appearance of the appellant or his/her lawyer before the Committee or the communication of certification of residence (Article 83(3) of the Asylum Code to the Committee.^[109]

Examination under a single-member Appeals Committee/three members Appeals Committee: the IPA provides that appeals are examined under a collegial format by the three members Committee,^[110] or in a single judge format for appeals filed after the deadline as well as for certain appeals in the Accelerated Procedure and the Admissibility Procedure.^[111] Following an amendment of the Regulation for the functioning of the Appeals Committees which was adopted in November 2020, the categories of cases examined under a single-judge format has been extended, as all appeals submitted by applicant residing in the hotspot islands (Lesvos, Samos, Chios, Kos, Leros) are examined by a single judge committee irrespectively of the procedure applied.^[112]

Issuance of a Decision: Article 106 Asylum Code provides that decisions have to be issued as soon as possible and in any case:

• Within thirty (30) days of the hearing of the case in regular procedure cases,
• Within twenty (20) days of the hearing in accelerated procedure case,
• Within ten (10) days of the hearing in cases where the appellant is under administrative detention,
• Within twenty (20) days of the hearing in cases when the application is rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 89,

An exception is introduced for priority cases, as the decision must be issued within 15 days of the hearing.

Notification of second instance decision: Similar to the fictitious service at first instance, the Asylum Code provides for the possibility of a fictitious service (πλασματική επίδοση) of second instance decisions as described above.^[113] Once again, considering that the “fictitious” service of the second instance decision triggers the deadline for lodging an appeal, these deadlines for legal remedies against a negative second instance decision may expire without the applicant being actually informed about the decision. Accordingly, it should be noted that the IPA reduced the deadline for lodging a legal remedy before a Court against a second instance negative decision from 60 days to 30 days from the notification of the decision (see below, Judicial review).^[114] As noted by the Greek Ombudsman, since the initial introduction of the possibility of a fictitious service in 2018, these provisions “effectively limit the access of asylum seekers to judicial protection” and even if “the need to streamline procedures is understandable … in a State governed by law, it cannot restrict fundamental democratic guarantees, such as judicial protection”.^[115]

Following the amendment of the IPA in May 2020 which was maintained by the Asylum Code, the right to remain in the country is revoked once the second instance decision is issued, irrespective of when the decision is communicated.^[116] As noted by UNHCR:^[117]

‘UNHCR is concerned that such amendment would allow for the removal of a person from the territory before a second instance decision is notified to him/her. The parallel notification of a negative appeal decision is also undermining the right to judicial protection […], as persons whose claims are rejected will not be able to submit an application for annulment or an application for suspension in practice, which could ultimately lead to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. The deprivation of legal stay before a notification of a negative decision has further premature negative repercussions on the enjoyment of the rights of asylum seekers from which they are to be excluded only following the notification of negative decision (e.g. the right to shelter and cash assistance)’.

Individuals whose asylum applications are rejected at second instance no longer have the status of “asylum seeker”,^[118] and thus do not benefit from reception conditions.

Judicial review

Applicants for international protection may lodge an application for annulment (αίτηση ακύρωσης) of a second instance decision of the Appeals Committees solely before the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens or Thessaloniki,^[119] within 30 days from the notification of the decision.^[120]

According to the IPA,^[121] following the lodging of the application for annulment, an application for suspension/interim order can be filed. The decision on this single application for temporary protection from removal should be issued within 15 days from the lodging of the application.

The effectiveness of these legal remedies is severely undermined by a number of practical and legal obstacles:

• The application for annulment and application for suspension/interim order can only be filed by a lawyer. In addition, no legal aid is provided in order to challenge a second instance negative decision. The capacity of NGOs to file such applications is very limited due to high legal fees. The fees for filing an application for annulment varies between 257,80 euros to 318,55 euros, while the fees for filing an application for suspension varies between 145,40 euros to 198,35 euros, depending on the employment status of the lawyer. An additional financial burden required for the hearing of the application for suspension is the notification of the application to the Minister of Migration and Asylum, performed by α bailiff and amounting to 43,40 euros. Additionally, when it comes to the hearing of the application for annulment, if the applicant is not present at the hearing, the submission of a proxy is required, which costs approx. 60-65 euros. Legal aid may only be requested under the general provisions of Greek law,^[122] which are in any event not tailored to asylum seekers and cannot be accessed by them in practice due to several obstacles. For example, the request for legal aid is submitted by an application written in Greek; free legal aid is granted only if the legal remedy for which the legal assistance is requested is not considered “manifestly inadmissible” or “manifestly unfounded”.^[123] As noted by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention “[i]nadequate legal aid is provided for challenging a second instance negative decision on an asylum application, and the capacity of NGOs to file this application is very limited given the number of persons in need of international protection”.^[124]
• The application for annulment and application for suspension/interim order do not have an automatic suspensive effect.^[125] Therefore between the submission of an application for suspension/interim order and the in-merit decision of the court, there is no guarantee that the applicant will not be removed from the territory.
• The Administrative Court can only examine the legality of the decision and not the merits of the case.
• The judicial procedure is lengthy. GCR is aware of cases pending for a period of about two years for the issuance of a decision of the Administrative Court of Appeals following an application for annulment.

Moreover, according to Article 114(2) of the Asylum Code, the Minister on Migration and Asylum also has the right to lodge an application for annulment against the decisions of the Appeals Committee before the Administrative Court. In 2020, the Minister on Migration and Asylum lodged one application for annulment against a second instance decision of the Appeals Committees. The Appeals Committee rejected the Minister’s appeal and ruled that an applicant for whom a decision to discontinue the examination of the asylum application due to implicit withdrawal has been issued, cannot be removed before the nine months period during which she can report again to the competent authority in order to request her case be reopened. The Minister appealed to the Council of State which, on 27 June 2022, which issued its decision No. 1398/2022, accepting the Minister’s application for annulment.^[126]

A total of 191 applications for annulment were lodged before the Administrative Courts of Athens and Thessaloniki against second instance negative decisions throughout 2023, of which only 1 was accepted and 156 were still pending at the end of the year.^[127]

During the same period, a total of 940 decisions on applications for annulment were issued, of which 72 were accepted, 247 were rejected as unfounded, 587 were rejected as inadmissible and 34 concerned resignations.^[128]

Legal assistance

Asylum seekers have the right to consult, at their own cost, a lawyer or other legal advisor on matters relating to their application.^[129]

Legal assistance at first instance

No state-funded free legal aid is provided at first instance, nor is there a legal obligation to provide it. A number of non-governmental organisations (NGO) provide free legal assistance and counselling to asylum seekers at first instance, depending on their capacity and presence across the country. The scope of these services remains limited, taking into consideration the number of applicants in Greece and the needs throughout the whole asylum procedure – including registration of the application, first and second instance, judicial review and the complexity of the procedures followed, in particular after the entry into force of the IPA. As noted by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ‘[t]he Working Group urges the Government to expand the availability of publicly funded legal aid so that persons seeking international protection have access to legal advice at all stages of the process, from the moment of filing their application until a final determination is made’.^[130]

Legal assistance at second instance

Free legal assistance shall be provided to applicants in appeal procedures before the Appeals Authority under the terms and conditions set in the Ministerial Decision  788502/2023.^[131] According to the Ministerial Decision 494476/2023, the legal assistance scheme in appeal procedures will be integrated into the program AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) 2021-2027[132].

The first Ministerial Decision concerning free legal aid to applicants was issued in September 2016.^[133] However, the State-funded legal aid scheme on the basis of a list managed by the Asylum Service started operating, for the first time, on 21 September 2017.

According to Joint Ministerial Decision 788502/2023 regulating the State-funded legal aid scheme, asylum seekers are entitled to legal aid as long as they are not represented by another lawyer. The application for legal aid must be filed before the submission of the appeal[134].

The decision also explicitly provides for the possibility of legal assistance through videoconferencing in every Regional Asylum Office.^[135] The fixed fee of the Registry’s lawyers is €90 for the drafting and submission of the appeal and of the suspension application if required, €20 for the conclusion of the meeting with the appellant and €50 for the memorandum, regardless of whether the appeal was filed by the applicant within the deadline provided in the law or not. The fees are covered by the State.^[136]

In practice requests for legal aid at second instance are mainly submitted through the electronic platform of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum,^[137] notably because, as described above, first instance decisions may be notified to the applicants with a registered letter or other ways of notification and applicants’ access to RAOs/AAU is not unrestricted but a prior appointment is usually required, depending on the competent RAO/AAU. This may pose additional obstacles to applicants who are unfamiliar with the use of electronic applications or who do not have access to the required equipment/internet. In 2023, during which COVID-19 related restrictions were lifted, applicants continued to be advised to apply online for free legal aid. However, it has been noticed in certain RAOs/AAU that in case of the decision’s notification in person to the applicant by the Asylum Service, the applicants are asked whether they would like to file a request for free legal aid in person on the same day and time.

As previously mentioned, a total of 10,973 appeals were lodged against Asylum Service decisions in 2023, the majority of which (28.1%) were filed by appellants from Pakistan, followed by those from Egypt (8.6%), Afghanistan (7.2%), Bangladesh (6.2%) and Albania (6.1%).[138] Data on the number of applicants that were granted free legal assistance at second instance through the Registry of Lawyers of the GAS is not available nor, as has been the case with other information requested by GCR as part of this report, has it been provided following GCR’s relevant request for information, to which the MoMA replied by eferring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”[139]. Yet a closer look at the public sources referred to by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available.

[1] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://bit.ly/3TxX9jL, tables 7a, 8c. As noted in the same publication, “[s]tatistics on Pre-Registrations of applications for International Protection are not currently available for the period of July-December 2023 due to the upgrade of the computer system carried out by the Services of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum”.

[2] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: June 2022 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://bit.ly/3vRPhAD, table 7a.

^[3] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2022 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://bit.ly/3xB9341, table 8c.

[4] Article 88(6) Asylum Code.

[5] Article 74(6) Asylum Code.

^[6] MoMA, Reply of the Ministry to the Greek Parliament, 16 March 2023, https://bit.ly/3JIy0y6.

^[7] MoMA, Reply of the Ministry to the Greek Parliament, 16 March 2023, https://bit.ly/3JIy0y6.

[14] JMD 538595/2023, Gov. Gazette B’ 7063/15-12-2023.

[28] Information provided by the EUAA, 26 February 2024.

[29] Information provided by the EUAA, 26 February 2024.

^[30] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://bit.ly/3TxX9jL, table 9a.

^[33] Decision on file with the author.

[34] Ibid.

[41] MoMA, Anouncement, 17 May 2024, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/cr36z6br.

^[46] Article 87(3) Asylum Code.

^[48] Article 87(3) Asylum Code.

^[49] Article 87(4) Asylum Code.

^[50] Article 87(5) Asylum Code.

[68] MoMA, Analysis and Studies Office, Reply to GCR’s request for information for the preparation of the updated Annual Report on Greece for 2023 in the framework of the Asylum Information Database (AIDA) project, received on 14 February 2024 (protocol number: 55259).

^[69] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/wn2kukaa, table 10a.

^[70] Ibid, table 9b.

[71] To be noted, some discrepancies seem to exist between the data provided by the MoMA under the referenced Reply, and those published on the Ministry’s website. For instance, in the first case, the number of inadmissible decisions is stated at 5,037, while in the second case, it is stated at 5,030. For the data published on the Ministry’s website see MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/wn2kukaa, and for decisions on appeals, specifically table 9b.

^[73] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/wn2kukaa, p.16.

[74] Ibid., table 9b.

[81] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/wn2kukaa, table 10a.

[82] As per data provided pursuant to Parlamentary question 4099/201/02.04.2024.

[83] For instance, AIDA report on Greece: 2021 update, May 2022, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3a8u24w5, 20. and AIDA report on Greece: 2022 update, June 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3a8u24w5, 71.

^[100] Article 111 Asylum Code.

^[126] Council of State, Decision No. 1398/2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/45s5Q3e.

[127] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2023 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/wn2kukaa, table 13a.

[128] Ibid., table 13b.