Author
A “subsequent application” is an application for international protection submitted after a final decision has been taken on a previous application for international protection, including in cases where the applicant has explicitly withdrawn their application and cases where the determining authority has rejected the application following its implicit withdrawal.[1]
The definition of “final decision” was amended in 2018. According to the new definition, as maintained in the Asylum Code, a “final decision” is a decision granting or refusing international protection: (a) taken by the Appeals Committees following an appeal, or (b) which is no longer amenable by the aforementioned appeal due to the expiry of the time limit to appeal.[2] An application for annulment can be lodged against the final decision before the Administrative Court.[3]
The law sets out no time limit for lodging a subsequent application.[4] Subsequent applications are lodged before Regional Asylum Offices (RAO) across the country following appointment given upon pre-registration on the Ministry of Migration and Asylum’s electronic platform.[5] Accordingly, challenges with accessing the electronic platform, as inter alia observed in previous years,[6] also have a direct impact on applicants’ ability to submit subsequent applications. The interruption of interpretation services during the first half of 2024, and since April 2024 with regards the asylum procedures,[7] has had a similar impact during most of 2024.
Namely, as a result of the interruption, the MoMA’s online platform was not operating and registration appointments already obtained were postponed, rendering access to the procedure impossible in practice. In a joint letter, 36 civil society organisations, including GCR, called on the authorities to immediately fill the gaps in interpretation, underlining that the relevant services are funded by the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.[8] By the end of the year the issue was gradually resolved and registration for appointments resumed, nonetheless after several months of interruption.
A subsequent application can also be lodged by a member of a family who had previously lodged an application. In this case, the preliminary examination concerns the potential existence of evidence that justifies the submission of a separate application by the dependent person. Exceptionally, an interview is held for this purpose.[9]
As per data published by the MoMA,[10] a total of 4,687 subsequent asylum applications – 39 of which concerned UAMs – were registered by the Asylum Service from January 2024 to December 2024. An signisficant increase was noted during 2025 subsequent applications registered being 6.514,[11] out of which 37 concerned UAMs.
That being said, the aforementioned data does not include information on the type (i.e., first, second or further) of subsequent asylum application registered by the GAS, thus making it impossible to assess the extent to which Article 94(10) Asylum Code, requiring the submission of a € 100 fee for the registration of each second or further subsequent application, was triggered throughout the year (see below: Second and every following subsequent application).
Information on the main nationalities of those that submitted subsequent asylum applications during the year is also not included in the specific publications, nor was it provided instead referencing the aforementioned publicly available data, which despite some improvements, is still lacking. The same applies to information regarding the total number of subsequent applications that were considered admissible and referred to be examined on the merits.
During 2024 a total of 3,037 subsequent applications were dismissed as inadmissible at first instance and 1,693 at second instance.[12] During 2025 3,709 subsequent applications were dismissed as inadmissible at first instance and 1,456 at the second.[13]
Preliminary examination procedure
When a subsequent application is lodged, the competent authorities examine the application in conjunction with the information provided in previous applications.[14]
Subsequent applications are subject to a preliminary examination, during which the authorities examine whether new substantial elements have arisen or have been presented by the applicant that could not be invoked by the applicant through no fault of their own during the examination of their previous application for international protection or appeal. The preliminary examination of subsequent applications is conducted within five days from their lodging to assess whether new substantial elements have arisen or been submitted by the applicant.[15] The examination takes place within two days if the applicant’s right to remain on the territory has been withdrawn.[16] During this preliminary stage, all information is provided by the applicant in writing.[17]
Given the purpose of the procedure, elements or claims related either to the applicant’s personal circumstances or to the situation in the applicant’s country of origin that did not exist during the examination of their previous application should be considered new in light of the first asylum procedure. Elements previously available to the applicant or claims that could have been submitted during the first asylum procedure should be considered new when the applicant provides valid reasoning for not presenting them at that stage. Furthermore, such new elements should be considered to be substantial if they lead to the conclusion that the application is not manifestly unfounded, that is to say, if the applicant does not invoke claims clearly not related to the criteria for refugee status or subsidiary protection.
Indicative Case law
In its decision IΡ/61590/2025 AAU of Amigdaleza, in the case of a subsequent application filed after an implicit revocation of the international protection, an Iranian applicant missed his scheduled interview and that implicit revocation was concluded by the authorities, terminating the examination of the application. According to the AAU, however, the above claims were not recorded, examined, or assessed at an earlier stage, as the applicant did not appear at the scheduled interview for his previous application. Consequently, the above information presented in the applicant’s subsequent application was accepted as new. Consequently, his application required further examination in accordance with Article 94 of Law 4939/2022 and must be deemed admissible in order to be further examined .[18]
In its decision IP/63615/2025 RAO of Western Greece in the case of a Somali applicant whose first application was rejected due to his transit through Türkiye, at the subsequent application RAO accepted his application on the fact that “it appears from the information in the applicant’s file that one year has elapsed since his transit through Türkiye (…10/2023). The Service considers that the above fact, namely that one year has elapsed since his transit through Türkiye, may be regarded as new. As for the legal requirement regarding whether this element in his subsequent application is also material, the Service considers that this element is indeed material, as it relates to the conditions set forth by the legislation for Türkiye be designated a “safe third country” for the specific applicant in accordance with Article 91 of Law 4939/2022. Consequently, his application requires further examination pursuant to Article 94 of Law 4939/2022 and must be deemed admissible in order to be further examined in accordance with the aforementioned provisions.”[19]
In the case of ΙΡ/129638/2025 RAO Alimos, the Service considered that the applicant’s claims regarding her mental health, as corroborated by the documents submitted, may, under certain conditions, overturn the conclusions of previous rejection decisions regarding her credibility. Consequently, the claims under consideration must be regarded as new evidence. As for the legal requirement regarding whether the evidence cited by the applicant in her subsequent application is also substantial, the Service considered that the evidence cited by the applicant in her subsequent application was substantial, as they relate to the conditions set forth by law for the applicant to be recognized as a beneficiary of subsidiary protection[20]
The RAO of Thessalonikis, in decision ΙΡ/752502/2025, accepted the applicants (i.e., a female survivor of SGBV) subsequent applicationeven thought the claim refered to a fact the applicant was aware for the beginning of the procedure. According to the decision “her allegation of sexual harassment suffered at the hands of her uncle and the risk of recurrence of the abuse she cites, it appears that this is being raised for the first time before the competent examining authorities and may be considered new evidence since the applicant was able to explain that, due to fear and cultural barriers, she was unable to raise this claim in her previous applications. As for the legal requirement regarding whether the evidence invoked by the applicant in her subsequent application is also substantial, the Service finds that the evidence invoked in her subsequent application are material, as they alter the assessment of the risk she faces in the event of return to her country of origin. In conclusion, upon evaluating and comparing what the applicant initially stated and what she stated in subsequent application, in conjunction with the information regarding the applicant’s country of origin, it appears that the facts she invokes in the subsequent application are new and substantial. Consequently, her application requires further examination in accordance with Article 94 of Law 4939/2022 and must be deemed admissible in order to be further examined in accordance with the provisions referred to above”.[21]
If the preliminary examination concludes on the existence of new elements “which affect the assessment of the application for international protection”, the subsequent application is considered admissible and examined on the merits and the applicant is issued a new “asylum applicant’s card”. If no such elements are identified, the subsequent application is deemed inadmissible.[22]
Until a final decision is taken on the preliminary examination, all pending measures of deportation or removal of applicants who have lodged a subsequent asylum application are suspended.[23] However, as mentioned, applicants do not receive an asylum applicant’s card until the conclusion of this preliminary stage, and subject to the application being deemed admissible. In the meantime, therefore, applicants have no access to the rights attached to the asylum applicant status or protection.
Exceptionally, under the Asylum Code, ‘the right to remain on the territory is not guaranteed to applicants who
- make a first subsequent application which is deemed inadmissible, solely to delay or frustrate removal, or
- make a second subsequent application after a final decision dismissing or rejecting the first subsequent application’.[24]
Any new submission of an identical subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible.[25]
An appeal against the decision rejecting a subsequent application as inadmissible can be lodged before the Independent Appeals Committees under the Appeals Authority within 5 days of its notification to the applicant.[26]
Second and every following subsequent application
Since September 2021, following relevant amendments to the IPA,[27] each subsequent application after the first one is subject to a fee amounting to €100 per application, with the relevant provision being maintained under Article 94(10) Asylum Code. This amount may be revised through a Joint Ministerial decision.
A Joint Ministerial Decision of the Ministers of Migration and Asylum and of Finance, which is in force since 1 January 2022, determined various issues concerning the implementation of the statutory provision (definitions, payment procedure, reimbursement of unduly paid fees etc.).[28] The same Ministerial Decision foresees that if the application is submitted on behalf of several members of the applicant’s family, the same fee is paid separately for each applicant, including minor children.[29]Illustratively, a five-member family composed of two parents and three minor children has to pay a fee of €500, to be able to submit a second or further subsequent application.
National human rights bodies, including the Greek Ombudsperson and civil society organisations repeatedly called on the Minister of Migration and Asylum to abolish the aforementioned legislative regulation. At the time of the writing (February 2025) the fee remains a precondition for the registration.
As noted by the Greek Ombudsperson,[30] “linking the deposit of a fee with the submission of a subsequent application for international protection undermines exercise of the right to asylum, as enshrined in Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A fee, and indeed one amounting to €100 […], constitutes the submission of a subsequent application almost prohibitive for a population that is in a vulnerable financial situation, as is the case with asylum applicants and contravenes Articles 40-42 of Directive 2013/32/EU”.
As further noted in a joint statement by 10 civil society organisations, members of the Lesvos Legal Aid Actor sub-Working Group, the provision is also “in conflict with the provisions of Articles 25(2) and 20(1) of the Greek Constitution, Articles 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and relevant case law of the ECtHR regarding the provisions of Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the ECHR, as it effectively makes access to the asylum procedure impossible for those refugees who cannot afford to pay the €100 fee for each person/family member.”[31]
In the same statement, the organisations further flag the additional concerns arising in relation to applicants for international protection who have had their applications rejected as inadmissible, without ever having been examined on the merits, on account of the persistent application of the “safe third country” concept in the case of Türkiye and the persistent refusal of the Greek authorities to enforce Article 38(4) Directive 2013/32/EU (Article 91(5) Asylum Code), despite the ongoing lack of any reasonable prospect of readmission to Türkiye for now more than three years. As noted, with said practice impacting on Syrian nationals even before the introduction of the JMD designating Türkiye as a “safe third country” for specific nationalities (also see Safe Third Country), “there are cases of applicants who have not been able to access a safe legal status for [more than] four years, as they are constantly rejected on admissibility. […] the Administration must invite them to an oral hearing to assess the merits according to Article 91(5) of the Asylum Code and not to force them to apply for international protection for a third time and to pay a fee of €100”.[32]
The Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) and Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) have filed a judicial review petition before the Greek Council of State for the annulment of the aforementioned Joint Ministerial Decision. The date of the hearing was set for June 2022 but was subsequently postponed and took place in May 2024. A further annulment application was also filled by HIAS Greece and two families of individual applicants before the Council of State, which after several postponements as well, was also heard on May 2024. The decisions remain pending by the end of 2025.
The European Commission has also pointed out to the Greek authorities that the unconditional submission of a fee of €100 for the second and further subsequent applications raises issues regarding effective access to the asylum procedure as evidenced by European Commissioner Johansson’s reply of 25 January 2022 to a relevant question submitted under the urgent procedure by the German Green MEP Erik Marquardt.[33]
[2] Article 1(κδ) of Asylum Code.
[3] Article 114 (1) of Asylum Code.
[4] Article 94 of Asylum Code.
[5] The relevant platform can be accessed at: https://bit.ly/3Jyqp44.
[6] AIDA, Country report on Greece: 2023 update, available at: https://tinyurl.com/44yc8h29, p.148.
[7] RSA, “Major deficiencies in the provision of interpretation services in Greece: Even asylum interviews are no longer being conducted”, 5 November 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/f7y3at5e.
[8] Joint CSO Open letter: Put an end to the disruption of interpretation services still undermining asylum seekers’ rights in Greece, 1 November 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/f8pvdpua.
[9] Article 94(5) of Asylum Code.
[10] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2024 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yvd7454p, tables 7c and 7f.
[11] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 7c and 7f
[12] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2024 – International Protection | Appendix A, available https://tinyurl.com/yvd7454p Tables 8a and 8b
[13] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 8a and 8b
[14] Article 94 (1) of Asylum Code.
[15] Article 94 (2) of Asylum Code.
[16] Articles 94(2) and 94 (9) of Asylum Code.
[17] Article 94 (2) of Asylum Code.
[18] Decision IP/ 61590/2025 AAU of Amigdaleza summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p.21
[19] Decision IP/ IP/63615/2025 RAO of Western Greece summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p20
[20] Decision IP/ 129638/2025 RAO Alimos summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p22
[21] Decision IP/ 752502/2025 RAO Thessaloniki, summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2025 https://tinyurl.com/3fkyetz5 p.21
[22] Article 94(4) of Asylum Code.
[23] Article 94(9) of Asylum Code.
[24] Article 94(9) of Asylum Code.
[25] Article 94(7) of Asylum Code.
[26] Article 97(1d) of Asylum Code.
[27] Article 89(10) IPA, as amended by Article by Article 23 L.4825/2021, available at: https://bit.ly/4d7ACSN.
[28] Joint Ministerial Decision 472687/ 21.12.2021, Gazette 6246/ B/ 27.12.2021 entered into force on 01 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3JQNj7f. ,
[29] Article 1 (2) Joint Ministerial Decision 472687/2021.
[30] Greek Ombudsperson, Comments and observations on the draft law ‘Reform of deportation procedures and returns of third country nationals, attracting investors and digital media nomads, issues of residence permit and procedures for granting international protection and other provisions of the MoMA and Ministry of Citizen Protection, Document Prot. No 43/30.08.20201, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/22yp7m4h, p. 11.
[31] Joint statement by 10 civil society organizations-members of the Legal Aid Working Group of Lesvos, Imposition of a €100 fee for access to asylum from the 2nd and each further subsequent application to applicants for international protection, 2 March 2022, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/n2585h35.
[32] Ibid.
[33] European Parliament, Parliamentary question E-005103/2021, 20 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3M3dGWh.