Identification

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

The “Asylum Code”, i.e., Law 4939/2022 ‘ratifying the Code on reception, international protection of third-country nationals and stateless persons, and temporary protection in cases of mass influx of displaced persons’,[1] in force since 10 June 2022, repealed the IPA (International Protection Act, i.e., Law 4636/2019).[2] The Asylum Code does not include any amendments to the definition of vulnerable groups and persons in need of special procedural guarantees.

According to Article 1(λγ) Asylum Code, the following non-exhaustive groups are considered as vulnerable:

‘children; unaccompanied children; direct relatives of victims of shipwrecks (parents, siblings, children, spouses); disabled persons; elderly; pregnant women; single parents with minor children; victims of human trafficking; persons with serious illness; persons with cognitive or mental disability and victims of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence such as victims of female genital mutilation.’

According to Article 62(2) Asylum Code, ‘[t]he assessment of vulnerability shall take place during the identification process, the registration process and the medical screening of the Art. 41 without prejudice to the assessment of international protection needs’. According to Article 62(4) of the Asylum Code ‘[o]nly the persons belonging to vulnerable groups are considered to have special reception needs and thus benefit from the special reception conditions’. Article 62(3) of the Asylum Code provides that ‘[…] the special condition of applicants, even if it becomes apparent at a later stage of the examination of the application for international protection, is taken into account throughout this procedure […]’.

According to Article 77(3) Asylum Code:

‘[…] Upon the completion of the medical and psychosocial assessment, the [Medical Screening and Psychosocial Support] Unit of the RIC […] shall inform the Head of the competent RAO. The above-mentioned assessment is also notified to the Manager of the RIC. That assessment shall have as only consequence the immediate provision of special reception conditions and special procedural guarantees to the applicant.’

According to Article 72(1) Asylum Code relating to special procedural guarantees:

‘The Receiving Authorities shall assess within a reasonable period of time after an application for international protection is submitted, or at any point of the procedure the relevant needs arise, whether the applicant requires special procedural guarantees, due to –among others- their age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, psychological disorder or because they are a victim of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.’

A new General Secretariat for Vulnerable Persons and Institutional Protection (GSVP) falling under the responsibilities of the Deputy Minister of Migration and Asylum was established with article 6(1) of P.D. 77/2023 (A’ 130/ 27-06-2023) to which the services of the Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors of article 39 of the P.D. 106/2020 were transferred.[3]

The number of asylum seekers registered by the Asylum Service as vulnerable in 2023 was not provided, nor was the number and type of decisions taken at first instance on cases of vulnerable applicants. The number of first instance decisions granting refugee status or subsidiary protection to vulnerable applicants in 2023 was not provided either. The only statistical information available for vulnerable persons for 2023 (1 January-31 December 2023) regarded the number of registered children in general and unaccompanied children in particular and the number/type of first and second instance asylum decisions, which is as follows:

• the number of registered children in 2023 amounted to a total number of 14,631, thus 23% in a total of 64,212 registered asylum applications.[4]
• the number of registered unaccompanied children in 2023 amounted to a total number of 2,937 (2.895 registered UAMs for first asylum applications and 42 for subsequent asylum applications), thus 4,3% of a total of 69,043 registered asylum applications. (Note: the number [69,043] of the total registered asylum applications is higher here compared to the relative number of registered asylum applications mentionned above [64,212], because this number [69,043] includes also December 2022, which is not the case for the second number [64,212], which includes data from January – December 2023).[5]
• the number of 1st and 2nd instance decisions granting refugee status and subsidiary protection to children amounted to a total of 7,557 (7,366 decisions granting refugee status & 191 decisions granting subsidiary protection), thus 29% in a total of 25,813 positive asylum decisions.[6]
• the number of 1s instance decisions granting refugee status and subsidiary protection to UAMs amounted to a total of 1,163 (1,133 decisions granting refugee status & 30 decisions granting subsidiary protection), of which 902 decisions regarded male UAMs and 261 regarded female UAMs.[7]

Screening of vulnerability

Vulnerability identification in the border regions

According to the law, the identification of vulnerability of individuals arriving at the border regions shall be carried out either by the RIS before the registration of the asylum application or during the asylum procedure.[8]

Vulnerability identification by the RIS

According to Article 41 Asylum Code regarding registration and medical examination, in the context of reception and identification procedures carried out by the RIS:

‘“The third stage of the reception and identification procedure regarding “Registration and Medical Examination” includes: […]d) the care for those who belong to vulnerable groups, so that they are provided with specialized care and protection. In particular, the Manager of the Reception and Identification Centre (RIC) or the Closed Controlled Access Centre (CCAC) or Unit, acting on a motivated proposal of the competent medical staff of the Reception and Identification Centre or the Closed Controlled Structure, shall refer persons belonging to vulnerable groups to the competent, based on each case, public institution of social support or protection. A copy of the medical screening and psychosocial support file is transmitted to the Head of the institution where the person resides or is being referred. In all cases, the continuity of the medical treatment followed shall be ensured, where necessary. The assessment that a person is vulnerable shall have as only consequence the immediate provision of special reception conditions.

According to Article 80 (3) of the Asylum Code regarding applications of UAMs: ‘In case of doubt, the competent Receiving Authorities shall refer the unaccompanied minor to the age assessment procedures as per the provisions in force. In cases the above-mentioned referral is considered necessary and until the completion of the procedure, special attention should be paid to the particular characteristics of the minor, especially those related to their gender or cultural peculiarities’ (see below).

Since the end of 2019, the authority competent for carrying out medical checks has been the National Public Health Organisation (EODY), which was established by L 4633/2019 as the successor of KEELPNO.

Based on data published by the MoMA in the first months of 2024, the number of those registered as vulnerable by the RIS at the borders and in mainland RICs throughout 2023, based on the category of vulnerability, stands as follows:[9]

During the same period (2023), EUAA staff identified 7,940 persons as presenting vulnerability indicators, in the context of vulnerability assessments carried out in reception facilities, as part of the support provided by the Agency to Greece’s first and second-line reception system,[10] but the extent to which these numbers overlap is not possible to assess.

The number of persons identified as vulnerable after conclusion of the reception and identification procedures and the number of persons identified as vulnerable after re-examination were not provided by the competent Ministry. Moreover, no information was provided regarding the competent authority to cover the expenses in cases where transfer to another island was necessary for the vulnerability assessment.

The low quality of the process of medical and psychosocial screening, if any, has remained a source of serious concern also in 2023. As stated in AIDA report for 2022,[11] vulnerabilities are often missed, with individuals going through the asylum procedure without having their vulnerability assessment completed first. Equal Rights Beyond Borders, HIAS Greece and RSA have reported that “[s]evere delays persist when it comes to conducting vulnerability assessments even after the reception and identification procedure formally ends: The time delay ranges from ten days to longer than three months in some cases. Yet, the Asylum Service and EUAA continue to process asylum claims before individuals have undergone a vulnerability assessment, and routinely disregard or deny special procedural guarantees afforded by EU law, even where they are specifically requested by the applicants in writing and/or orally prior to the interview. They instead insist on completing the interview under the border procedure. The medical cards issued to people undergoing reception and identification procedure do not clearly indicate whether and when a vulnerability assessment was conducted”. [12] The organisations further report that, “[o]n the one hand, the RIS consistently issues referrals of the individuals concerned to the competent authorities (i.e., the Asylum Service and Hellenic Police) stating that the reception and identification procedure has been completed without a finding of vulnerability. On the other hand, the exact date of the medical check and vulnerability assessment is not marked in the case file of the person. The Foreigner’s Medical Card (Κάρτα Υγείας Αλλοδαπού) issued on the day the reception and identification procedure takes place automatically carries that same date. The card may be amended following an assessment, in which case a re-issuance date is indicated. However, this is not necessarily the date on which the vulnerability assessment takes place. This means that asylum seekers are referred to the Asylum Service with a Medical Card which in most cases precedes the actual medical check and vulnerability assessment.”[13]

Based on GCR’s information from the field, in 2023, the main problems arising out of the Reception and Identification procedures  continue and include the lack or complete absence of psychosocial assessment, the difficulties in carrying out referrals from RIS to public hospitals, the low quality of the medical screening and psycho-social support, the classification of vulnerability and non-vulnerability and the lack of information on the outcome of the procedure.[14] As mentioned in the Regular procedure and Fast-track border procedure, many asylum seekers continue being forced to attend their personal interview with the Asylum Service without a prior assessment of their vulnerability, including pregnant women.

The number of healthcare professionals involved in the provision of medical and psychosocial services at the different Reception and Identification Centres in the border regions in 2023 is not available.

Chios: In Chios CCAC (Vial camp), the Medical Unit has no doctor since March 2021. In 2023, periodically, the doctor of Leros CCAC Medical Unit was visiting Chios CCAC only to sign vulnerability assessment documents and medical cards, without carrying out a substantive assessment of the medical condition of the asylum applicants. Shortages of medicines and medical equipment (e.g., for blood pressure/diabetes) are observed in the Medical Unit of RIS (Vial). While a state budget is foreseen for intra-island transport costs, the Ministry does not make use of and all transportation to and from Chios General Hospital is covered by NGO Open Arms. Rub halls with single room and no beds (only mattresses on the floor) are used for the accommodation of nuclear families together with monoparental families and single men. RIS encounters problems with interpretation in the majority of languages; the only interpretation available is for arabic and somali[15]. Moreover, according to a report of RSA: “[…] The vulnerability evaluation procedure seems to be inadequate, as in an attempt to find a solution to the serious shortage of medical staff, nursing staff is called upon to fill the gap, by asking asylum seekers questions. Then, the relevant documents are signed by a doctor who visits the structure from Chios’ hospital or from a National Public Health Organisation Unit”[16].

Samos: On 30 November 2023, on case of D.S. v. Greece [Application no. 2080/2019], the ECtHR ruled that Greece violated article 3 and 13 of the ECHR for the living conditions of a young single woman refugee in the former camp of Samos and her lack of access to an effective remedy. The case was represented before the ECtHR by GCR. In particular, the Court rejected the Greek Government’s arguments that the applicant had not been identified as a vulnerable person by the authorities and observed that the applicant’s lawyer had informed the authorities of her fragile state and had requested, since the moment of her arrival, that she receives decent accommodation and psychological assistance.[17]

Regarding the living conditions and vulnerability assessment in Samos CCAC, twenty civil society organisations based in Samos in a joint statement dated 31 January 2024 stated: “Since the implementation of the CCAC, an automatic de facto detention regime has been put in place for newly arrived people […] until their registration procedures with the police and First Reception have been completed. According to Greek law, this de facto detention period […] is not supposed to exceed 25 days, […] (and) only by way of exception. During this period, […] (v)ulnerability assessments are not conducted, leaving pregnant women, unaccompanied minors, people with medical conditions or SGBV survivors without the proper care they need and are legally entitled to. […] Since the opening of the CCAC […] one state-appointed doctor worked inside the medical unit of the facilities, for one month, between October and November 2023. […] As there are no health workers present in the facilities, their medical needs are assessed by police officers or security employees, who are not qualified to do so. Any person who resides in the CCAC and especially those who are de facto detained, have insufficient and inconsistent access to medical care. Additionally, due to the absence of healthcare and individual vulnerability assessments, asylum seekers with communicable diseases risk remain undetected or unable to seek medical treatment for several weeks after arrival which causes a serious risk of contagion”[18].

Moreover, according to a joint submission of GCR & OXFAM to the European Ombudsman in March 2023: “[..] there is currently no designated staff on site for vulnerability identification or assessment. This means that vulnerabilities are currently not taken into account during the interview or in the decision-making on individual cases. Moreover, it means that individuals with vulnerabilities, including GBV survivors, torture survivors, traumatised individuals, those with PTSD, people in need of psycho-social and mental health support, as well as those with serious medical conditions, chronical diseases or particular needs are not offered the support or procedural safeguards that they have a right to. The Medical Unit of the CCAC has no doctor and lacks the required specialised medical staff to examine alleged minors and assess their age. Regarding Victims of Torture (VoTs), […] the reception state, is required to provide specialized staff as well as continuous specialized training to public staff. However, there is currently a lack of specialist staff in the Medical and Psychosocial Unit of the CCACs’ Reception and Identification Service (RIS) and the islands’ General Hospitals. Therefore, there currently is no systematic identification and assessment of a VOT and/or GBV, contrary to the Istanbul Convention’s provisions and Istanbul Protocol on procedural safeguards”.[19]

Kos: Shortcomings related to understaffing were also reported in 2023 in the RIS of Kos, as there was no EODY doctor, nor a psychologist, resulting in medical services currently being provided by an army doctor and medical missions of the Hellenic National Public Health Organization medical teams deployed from other CCACs[20]. Thus, vulnerability assessments were signed in mass when a visitor doctor from EODY arrived at the RIS. Based on GCR’s observations, only obvious vulnerabilities were identified (e.g., pregnant women, elderly people); while victims of GBV or Female Genital Mutilation were often identified as vulnerable by RIS only after issuance of a first instance negative decision on their asylum application.

Moreover, according to a joint submission of GCR & OXFAM to the European Ombudsman on March 2023: “In […] Kos, a doctor from Leros island occasionally visits the facility. This makeshift solution jeopardizes residents’ health, as there is no one to provide medical first aid or to assess daily health risks in the CCAC. […] Moreover, the lack of full-time medical staff hinders adequate and timely vulnerability and age assessments, procedural safeguards that have a significant impact on the outcome of individuals’ asylum procedure”.[21]

On 12 December 2023, in a case represented by GCR before the ECtHR, the Court -pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court- granted Interim Measures with regards to two Afghan women and their five accompanied minor children residing at the CCAC of Kos in absolutely inadequate conditions. The Court ordered the Greek authorities to ensure that the applicants “have full access to reception conditions which respect human dignity and take into account their multiple vulnerabilities“.[22]

Leros: “According to the UNHCR, at the end of March (2023) there were two doctors and a psychologist inside the CCAC. At the local hospital, staff shortages, which make the medical care of all patients problematic, have been repeatedly denounced. The hospital does not have an interpreter” [23].

Lesvos: In a letter addressed to the authorities dated 12 December 2023 regarding access to food and medical care in Lesvos CCAC, 16 non-governmental organisations stated that in: “CCAC Lesvos […] people in need of international protection do not effectively have access to medical care, medication and mental health and psychosocial support […] due to a severe lack of capacity and lack of qualified staff, applicants are systematically not correctly examined, and many don’t have their vulnerabilities correctly acknowledged or acknowledged at all, especially when non-visible. Also, […] in many cases, no initial mental health assessment is conducted. […] On Lesvos, there are currently 2 doctors of […] EODY responsible for conducting the medical examinations in the CCAC. However, considering that there are regularly more than 100 new arrivals per week, and that these doctors are also in charge of the public healthcare provision of approximately 5200 residents, it is clear that the capacity of EODY does not meet the needs of the facility and must urgently be adapted”.[24] Moreover, according to a report of FENIX dated April 2023: “vulnerability assessments only consist of a medical examination on Lesvos – psychosocial assessments may only be conducted whether the doctor who conducts the medical assessment requests it, raising the likelihood of leaving unrecognised many non-visible vulnerabilities. If the asylum applicants go through a psychosocial assessment, the doctor who conducted the initial medical examination has to accept and agree with the observations by the psychologist. Asylum applicants can request a reassessment; however, in practice, this is challenging for applicants who do not have legal representation and delays are frequent. More recently, reassessments for persons between asylum applications stopped being conducted. […]”[25]. Moreover, “since November 2022, no psychosocial assessments have been conducted on Lesvos without an explicit request by the doctor responsible for the medical examination, contradicting Greek legislation”.[26]

Rhodes: According to a report of RSA dated 21 December 2023: “In recent months, due to delays in people’s transfer to other areas outside Rhodes where there is adequate infrastructure, the majority of new arrivals on the island – including families with young children – end up sleeping in parks, pavements, squares, on cardboard boxes, in tents and makeshift sheds. According to UNHCR data, 6,290 people had arrived in Rhodes from the beginning of the year to December 10. […] newcomers on neighbouring islands such as Kastelorizo are also initially transferred to Rhodes. There is no formal or informal accommodation structure in Rhodes, while the closest infrastructure for asylum seekers’ first reception and identification procedures is on the island of Kos […] newcomers’ countries of origin are mainly Syria and Palestine, i.e., people with a purely refugee profile. According to UNHCR, Rhodes has had the highest number of arrivals in the Dodecanese in recent months. This creates huge delays in registration, preventing the people’s transfer to Kos, Leros or the mainland”.[27]

Crete & Gavdos: According to a publication by RSA dated 19 December 2023: “In recent months, there has been an increase in the number of ships arriving in Crete and Gavdos, islands which have no official infrastructure for the first reception of asylum seekers and their identification procedures. […] Those who arrive in Gavdos and Chania are often transferred to the children’s summer camps at Kalathas in Akrotiri. Usually, only volunteer doctors and the Red Cross may enter this site, which is guarded by the police. The Municipality of Chania claims that the accommodation cost is prohibitive […] Those who arrive in Heraklion prefecture are usually transferred to the dockers’ hall in the port of Heraklion, where there is no infrastructure, not even beds, and which is also guarded by the police. […] they are not informed about the procedures to be followed and their rights in relation to asylum, and reception and identification procedures do not take place as required by law.  Furthermore, it is not clear whether and by what procedure the authorities identify unaccompanied minors and children accompanied by an adult who is not their legal guardian (separated). Practices to date indicate that there are cases where minors have been wrongly registered as adults. […]”.[28]

In most cases, based on GCR’s and partners’ observations, asylum claims are being examined before vulnerability assessments are carried out, and, in any case, the outcome of the latter are often not communicated to the Asylum Service before it issues its decision on the application.

The lifting of the geographical restriction (see also Reception Conditions A4. Freedom of Movement).

Under the IPA and the Asylum Code, the recognition of vulnerability of asylum seekers has no bearing on the asylum procedure under which their application is examined. Therefore, vulnerable groups, even when identified as such, are no longer referred to the Regular procedure, unless it is proven that no appropriate health care regarding their individual medical problem is available on the island where they reside (See below). In such cases, the geographical restriction imposed upon arrival is lifted and the applicant is transferred or allowed to travel to the mainland. Therefore, the exemption of vulnerable individuals from the Fast-Track Border procedure has become much more difficult.

More precisely, the movement of asylum-seekers who entered Greece through the islands of Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Leros, and Rhodes during 2023 is limited to within their respective island (‘geographical restriction’), as per Ministerial Decision 1140/2.12.2019 (GG B’ 4736/20.12.2019) in force since 1 January 2020.[29] Greek law transposes Article 7 RCD, allowing Member States to impose a restriction of movement to asylum-seekers within a specific area, provided that it does not affect their unalienable sphere of private life and that it allows sufficient scope for guaranteeing access to all the benefits granted under the Directive. Until 31 December 2019, the geographical restriction could be lifted, inter alia, in respect of vulnerable persons. Following amendments to the law, since 1 January 2020, the geographical restriction may inter alia[30] be lifted by a decision of the Manager of the RIC for vulnerable persons or persons in need of special reception conditions if appropriate support may not be provided within the area of restriction,[31] without sufficiently describing what such appropriate support entails.[32]

The number of decisions to lift geographical restrictions per RIC and per category of vulnerability (or other cases) in 2023 is not publicly available, nor was it provided by the MoMA following GCR’s relevant request.

Vulnerability identification in the asylum procedure

According to Article 77 (3) of the Asylum Code:

‘During the Reception and Identification procedure or the border procedure of art. 95 of this law, the Receiving Authorities or the Decision Authorities and especially the Regional Asylum Offices or the Autonomous Asylum Units shall refer the applicant for international protection to doctors of Public Hospitals or Public Mental Health Institutions or other contracted physicians or the Medical Screening and Psychosocial Support Unit of the RIC for the vulnerability assessment under the Article 41 of this law. Upon the completion of medical and psychosocial assessment, the Unit, acting on a written motivated proposal, shall inform the Head of the competent RAO. The above-mentioned proposal is also notified to the Manager of the RIC. That assessment shall have as only consequence the immediate provision of special reception conditions and special procedural guarantees to the applicant.’

According to Article 80 (3) of the Asylum Code ‘[i] In case of doubt, the competent Receiving Authorities shall refer the unaccompanied minor to the age assessment procedures as per the provisions in force. In case the above-mentioned referral is considered necessary and until the completion of the procedure, special attention should be paid to the particular characteristics of the minor, especially those related to their gender or cultural peculiarities.’

Article 72(1) of the Asylum Code provides that ‘[t]The Receiving Authorities shall assess within a reasonable time after the application for international protection is lodged or at any point of the procedure the relevant need arises, whether the applicant requires special procedural guarantees as a consequence, inter alia, of age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, mental disorders or as a consequence of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence’. According to Article 72(3) of the Asylum Code ‘When adequate support cannot be provided [to the applicants] within the framework of the accelerated procedure (art. 83 (9) IPA) and border procedure (art. 90 IPA), especially when the applicant needs to be provided with special procedural guarantees as a consequence of torture, rape or other forms of serious psychological, physical or sexual violence, the abovementioned procedures do not apply or cease to apply […]’.

Also, according to Article 62 (5) of the Asylum Code ‘[i]n case the competent Authorities identify victims of human trafficking, they are obliged to inform as soon as possible the National System of Recognition and Referral of Victims of Human Trafficking in accordance with the Articles 76 and 79 L. 4781/2021’.

Despite these provisions, the shortage of medical and psychosocial care makes it extremely complicated and sometimes impossible for people seeking asylum to be (re-)assessed during that process. Following the medical and psychosocial assessment, the medical psychosocial unit of the RIC should inform the competent RAO or AAU of the Asylum Service.

As mentioned above, due to significant gaps in the provision of reception and identification procedures in 2023, owing to a significant understaffing of EODY units and other issues, GCR has found that for a considerable number of applicants the asylum procedure was initiated without a proper medical screening and/or a psychosocial assessment having been concluded.

Accordingly, where vulnerability is not identified before the asylum procedure, the initiation of a vulnerability assessment and further referral for vulnerability identification depends to a great extent on the discretion of the caseworker. However, according to GCR’s observations, the referral for further medical/psychosocial screening by the caseworker after the first instance interview before the competent RAO is not common practice.

Also, according to GCR’s knowledge, the understaffing of State authorities in combination with the constant pressure to process more asylum applications more quickly, resulted in a serious undermining of procedural legal safeguards and thus to decisions of poor quality and unjustified rejections in many cases. GCR has documented, from reports from the field, many cases in which the asylum interview took place before the medical examination of the asylum seeker, thus impacted negatively on the outcome of the asylum cases.

As far as GCR is aware, also in 2023, Article 72(3) of the Asylum Code (exemption from the fast-track border procedure and referral to the regular procedure due to vulnerability) was not applied by the Asylum Service without a prior lifting of the geographical restriction. It was also noted that after the lifting of the geographical restriction for reasons not related to vulnerability, Article 72(3) of the Asylum Code was applied in several cases by the Asylum Service and the case was referred to the regular procedure without the person being identified as vulnerable. If the interview of first instance had already been conducted before the decision to lift the geographical restriction and the referral to the regular procedure due to vulnerability, it was not conducted again in accordance with the guarantees provided by Article 72(2) of the Asylum Code. For further information on the geographical restriction, see chapter on Reception Conditions – Freedom of Movement.

Data for applications exempted from the fast-track border procedure and referred to the regular procedure on grounds of vulnerability was not provided by MoMa despite GCR’s request.

Throughout 2023, the various RAOs in the different islands followed different practices as regards the conduct of asylum interviews (see the Regular procedure and Fast-track border procedure).

Vulnerability identification in the mainland

In November 2021, the Greek authorities issued a circular establishing that asylum seekers (except for unaccompanied minors) who have not been through the reception and identification process can submit their asylum applications only in the Reception and Identification Centres (RIC) on the Aegean island hotspots of Samos, Chios, Lesvos, Leros and in the Evros region. However, strong opposition in the parliament prompted the government to clarify[33] that applicants will not be transferred from the mainland to the islands, without however providing further information on the competent authorities for the registration of their applications. According to the authorities, the island reception facilities will exclusively process the cases of people arriving by sea. Furthermore, Skype is no longer used as a channel to access the asylum procedure for new applicants.[34] Consequently, vulnerable persons in the mainland (with the exception of unaccompanied minors) who have not been subjected to the reception and identification procedures were not able to have access the asylum procedure via Skype. Moreover, even if a lawyer intervenes and requests the registration of the asylum application of a vulnerable person in the mainland, a medical document of vulnerability issued from a public entity is most of the times needed according to the competent Regional Asylum Offices.

On 13 July 2022, the new Asylum Service launched a new registration platform, through which any appointment for lodging an asylum application in the mainland, even for vulnerable asylum seekers, needs to be booked. According to the Ministry’s announcement,[35] the registration of applicants staying in Southern Greece was to take place in the facility of Malakasa (Athens), while the registration of applicants staying in Northern Greece would take place in the facility of Diavata (Thessaloniki). Appointments were available from 1 September 2022. However, in practice, appointments were available several months later, depending on the language of the applicant. In the meantime, between November 2021 and September 2022, access to the asylum procedure on mainland Greece, Crete and Rhodes was suspended for the majority of third country nationals.[36]Access was suspended again between May 2023  and the beginning July 2023.[37]

According to a recent report of Refugee Legal Support and Mobile Info Team assessing the implementation of reception and identification procedures on mainland Greece: “Under the new procedure […] at one of two RICs on the Greek mainland, […] applicants are unable to exit the facility for a maximum of 25 days while they undergo screening consisting of a police interview, medical check, vulnerability assessment, and the registration of an asylum claim […]. Restriction of movement is applied as a blanket measure […] including (to) vulnerable persons […] meaning that people with a disability, pregnant women, victims of human trafficking, people with serious illnesses and torture survivors, among others, are subjected to de facto detention within the RICs for periods up to 25 days (and in practice possibly longer). […] assessment of vulnerability within the screening procedure is inadequate […]”.[38]

According to the law, when indications or claims of past persecution or serious harm arise (i.e., torture survivors), the Asylum Service has to refer the applicant to a medical and/or psychosocial examination, which should be conducted free of charge and by qualified, specialised personnel. Alternatively, the applicant must be informed that they can undergo such examinations at their own initiative and expense.[39] However, Article 77(2) of the Asylum Code provides that ‘[a]ny results and reports of such examinations are deemed as justified by the Asylum Service where it is established that the applicant’s allegations of persecution or serious harm are likely to be well-founded’.

Currently, there are no public health structures specialised in identifying or assisting torture survivors in their rehabilitation process. As a result, it is for the NGOs running relatively specialised programmes, to handle the identification and rehabilitation of victims of torture. This is rather problematic for reasons that concern the sustainability of the system, as NGOs’ funding is often interrupted. In Athens, torture survivors may be referred for identification purposes to the NGO METAdrasi in the context of its programme “Hope and Memory: Identification and Certification of Victims of Torture”.[40] However, those referrals are mostly only made by other NGOs. According to a report of FENIX of April 2023 regarding identification and certification of victims of torture: “practice over the years has demonstrated serious deficiencies in the identification and certification of victims of torture of applicants in Greece […]. Additionally, structural deficiencies are also observed in the specific process to certify VoTs, namely due to restrictive legislation limiting only public authorities to provide certification for VoTs in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, whilst national authorities and bodies do not have the qualification or training and lack of interpretation to proceed with this certification. At the same time, non-governmental organisations, namely Metadrasi, hold the appropriate expertise to provide certification for VoTs according to the Istanbul Protocol […] Nonetheless, […] the VoT certification provided by NGOs may be taken into consideration by asylum authorities for the purposes of the asylum procedure, but it is at the discretion of each decision maker […]”.[41]

Also, according to Article 62(5) of the Asylum Code “[i]n case the competent Authorities identify victims of human trafficking, they are obliged to inform the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) for the identification and referral of victims of Human Trafficking as soon as possible[42] in accordance with Articles 76 and 79 L. 4781/2021”.

Age assessment of unaccompanied children by the RIS and in the asylum procedure

On 13 August 2020, the Joint Ministerial Decision 9889/2020[43] entered into force, which sets out a common age assessment procedure both in the context of reception and identification procedures and the asylum procedure.

Article 41 (f) Asylum Code, related to reception and identification procedures, refers to the relevant legislation, i.e., JMD 9889/2020. According to Article 1(2) JMD 9889/2020, in case of doubt as to the person’s age, i.e., when the authority’s initial assessment is not consistent with the person’s statements,[44] the RIS or the Asylum Service or any authority/organisation competent for the protection of minors or the provision of healthcare or the Public Prosecutor should inform – at any point of the reception and identification procedures or the asylum procedure – the Manager of the RIC or the Facility of temporary reception/hospitality, where the individual resides, or the Head of RIS or the Asylum Service -if the doubt arises for the first time during the personal interview for the examination of the asylum application-, who, acting on a motivated decision, is obliged to refer the individual for age assessment. Age assessment is carried out by EODY within the RIC/CCAC, by any public health institution, or otherwise, by a private practitioner under a relevant programme.[45]

The age assessment is conducted following three successive steps, unless a safe conclusion can be drawn already at the first or second examination stage:

• Initially, the assessment is based on the individual’s macroscopic features (e., physical appearance) such as height, weight, body mass index, voice, and hair growth, following a clinical examination from properly trained healthcare professionals (i.e., physicians, paediatricians, etc.) who will consider body-metric data.[46]
• In case the person’s age cannot be adequately determined through the examination of macroscopic features, a psychosocial assessment is carried out by a psychologist and a social worker to evaluate the cognitive, behavioural and psychological development of the individual (second step). If a psychologist is not available or there is no functioning social service in the nearest public health institution, this assessment can be conducted by a specially trained psychologist and a social worker available from a certified civil society organisation but it cannot be conducted by an organisation in charge of providing care or housing to the person whose age is in question. The outcome of the age assessment at this point is a combination of the psychosocial assessment and the examination of the development of macroscopic features.[47]
• Whenever a conclusion cannot be reached after the conduct of the above procedures, the person will be subjected to the following medical examinations (last step): either left wrist and hand X-rays for the assessment of the skeletal mass, or dental examination or panoramic dental X-rays or any other appropriate means which can lead to a firm conclusion according to the international bibliography and practice.[48]

According to Article 1(7) JMD 9889/2020, the opinions and evaluations are delivered to the person responsible for the referral, who issues a relevant act to adopt the abovementioned conclusions, registers the age in the database of Reception and Asylum, and notifies the act to the Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors (which, since June 2023, has been replaced by the General Secretariat for Vulnerable Persons and Institutional Protection).[49]

After the age assessment procedure is completed, the individual should be informed in a language he or she understands about the content of the age assessment decision, against which he or she has the right to appeal in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure. The appeal has to be submitted to the authority that issued the contested decision within 15 days from the notification of the decision on age assessment.[50]

In practice, the 15-day period may pose an insurmountable obstacle to receiving identification documents proving their age, as in many cases, persons under an age assessment procedure remain restricted in the RIC/CCACs. These appeals are in practice examined by the Central RIS. The number of appeals submitted against age assessment decisions in 2023 is not available, as at the time of writing the Greek authorities had not provided GCR with this information it requested. During regular parliamentary scrutiny procedures, though, the deputy minister for Migration and Asylum replied to the member of parliament who asked the relevant question that between 28/04/2021 and 29/03/2023 a total of 1,024 decisions were issued following an appeal against an initial age assessment decision.[51]

According to the findings of the Greek Ombudsman, following inspection visits in CCACs, RICs and CAFTAAS during the last semester of 2022 until December 2023, there is a number of problems, obstacles and malfunctions in the implementation of the age assessment process. Indicatively, according to the report, in Samos CCAC, it was found that the psychosocial assessment was not carried out at all due to the lack of training of the psychosocial team of the Unit and this stage was being skipped (contrary to the provision of the relevant JMD mentioned above), while the lack of a doctor in the facility of Samos had affected the age assessment, as well, before a doctor was sent from Leros to cover the gap.[52]

GCR’s findings in Lesvos indicate that in a great number of cases, the age assessment procedure is carried out by two doctors,[53] with the one referring to the other in case of a doubt regarding the person’s minority, a practice not prescribed in law. Also, in Lesvos CCAC inadequate implementation of the domestic legislation has been observed,[54] as lengthy delays in the age assessment procedures, unlawful use of X-rays, non-acceptance of identification documents, lack of specialised personnel and lack of information regarding the procedure, methods and potential consequences of the age assessment are all forming pieces of a puzzle that a child has to understand alone, given the lack of guardians for UASCs during the reporting period.

In Kos, according to GCR’s field experience, the lack of sufficient medical personnel is reflected on this procedure as well. Persons who claim to be minors, contrary to the relevant JMD, have their age firstly assessed by psychosocial personnel (stage 2) and if the outcome is not conclusive, then any doctor working at the public hospital can offer his/her assessment regarding the age of the person (stage 1), as long as s/he is willing to participate in this procedure.

In mainland RICs of Diavata and Malakasa, the Medical Control and Psychosocial Support Unit (NPHO or EODY as is mostly used) is conducting the age assessment procedures, although the lack of a paediatrician at the Malakasa RIC, as well as the more general lack of medical staff or EODY Units in some facilities may affect or cause delays in the age assessment process.[55]

As mentioned above, in practice, the age assessment of unaccompanied children is an extremely challenging process as the procedure is not followed in a significant number of cases, inter alia, due to the lack of qualified staff. In this regard, it must be noted that GCR provided legal aid for three cases of unaccompanied children in 2023, in all of which the RIS authority accepted the child’s appeal against the age assessment decision on the grounds that lack of staff does not constitute legal justification for skipping the second step stipulated in law (see above). The decision on the appeal annulled the initial age assessment as “the psychosocial assessment included in the file […] does not reflect a reason to doubt the age assessment result, apart from ‘impossibility of determining age due to lack of staff’. [Therefore] the decision to refer [the child] to the third stage of medical examination took place without adequate reasoning of the authority’s inability to reach a conclusion at the second stage of the psychosocial assessment”.[56]

Concerning age assessment in the asylum procedure, Article 80(3) Asylum Code provides for procedural safeguards and refers explicitly to ‘applicable regulatory procedures’, i.e., JMD 9889/2020. According to the aforementioned provision, ‘when such a referral for age determination examinations is considered necessary and throughout this procedure, attention shall be given to the respect of gender-related special characteristics and of cultural particularities.’

The provision also sets out guarantees during the procedure:

1. A guardian for the child is appointed who shall undertake all necessary action in order to protect the rights and the best interests of the child, throughout the age determination procedure;
2. Unaccompanied children are informed prior to the examination of their application and in a language which they understand, of the possibility and the procedures to determine their age, of the methods used, therefore, the possible consequences of the results of the above-mentioned age determination procedures for the examination of the application for international protection, as well as the consequences of their refusal to undergo this examination;
3. Unaccompanied children or their guardians consent to carry out the procedure for the determination of the age of the children concerned;
4. The decision to reject an application of an unaccompanied child who refused to undergo this age determination procedure shall not be based solely on that refusal; and
5. Until the completion of the age determination procedure, the person who claims to be a minor shall be treated as such.

The law also states that ‘the year of birth can be modified after the age determination procedure under Article 80, unless during the interview it appears that the applicant who is registered as an adult is manifestly a minor; in such cases, a decision of the Head of the competent Receiving Authority, following a recommendation by the case-handler, shall suffice.’[57]

The JMD was an anticipated legal instrument, filling the gap of dedicated age assessment procedures within the context of the Asylum Service and limiting the use of medical examinations to a last resort while prioritising alternative means of assessment. Multiple safeguards prescribed in both the IPA and JMD 9889/2020 regulate the context of the procedure sufficiently, while explicitly providing the possibility of remaining doubts and thus providing the applicant with the benefit of the doubt even after the conclusion of the procedure. However, the lack of an effective guardianship system also hinders the enjoyment of procedural rights guaranteed by national legislation (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children).[58]

In practice, the lack of qualified staff within the reception and identification procedure and shortcomings in the age assessment procedure in the RIC undoubtedly have a spill-over effect on the asylum procedure, as the issuance of an age determination act by the RIS precedes the registration of the asylum application with the Asylum Service. While registration of date of birth by the Hellenic Police could be corrected by merely stating the correct date before the Asylum Service, this is not the case for individuals whose age has been wrongly assessed by the RIS. In this case, in order for the personal data, e.g., age, of the person to be corrected, the original travel document, or identity card should be submitted. Additionally, a birth certificate or family status can be submitted, however, these two documents require an apostille stamp,[59] which in practice is not always possible for an asylum seeker to obtain. In practice, however, employees in the RAOs sometimes corrects the age of the person on the basis of documents without apostille. Alternatively, according to the law, the caseworker of the Asylum Service can refer the applicant to the age assessment determination procedure in case that reasonable doubt exists as to his or her age.[60] In this case, referral to the age assessment procedure largely lies at the discretion of the Asylum Service caseworker.[61]

As mentioned above, the number of age assessments conducted within the framework of the asylum procedure in 2023 was not provided by MoMA despite GCR’s request.

[1] Asylum Code, Gov. Gazette A’ 111/10.06.2022.

[2] L 4636/2019, Gov. Gazette A’ 169/01.11.2019.

[3] For more information, see MoMA’s General Secretariat for Vulnerable Persons and Institutional Protection, home webpage, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2u63bw7y.

[4] MomA, Information Note A, December 2023, Reception, Asylum & Integration Procedures, p. 8, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/59d5hubb.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., p. 14.

[7] Ibid., p. 15.

[8] Articles 41 & 80(3) of the Asylum Code for vulnerability identification by RIS and articles 62(5), 72(1, 3), 77(3) and 80(3) for vulnerability identification in the asylum procedure.

[9] MoMA, Secretary General for the reception of Asylum Seekers / Reception and Identification Service / Directorate of RICs & CCACs, Registrations 12 months 2023, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/ytfkhkfu, p.7 and Registrations 12 months mainland 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/48jc9u7x, p.5.

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

[11] ECRE, AIDA, Country Report: Greece, 2022 Update, June 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3PUOVk9.

[12] Equal Rights Beyond Borders, HIAS Greece & Refugee Support Aegean, Τhe state of the border procedure on the greek islands, September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/40VTZrM, p. 4.

[13] Ibid., p. 15.

[14] For a detailed description of the issues during the procedure of the vulnerability assessment, See ECRE, AIDA, Country Report: Greece, 2021 Update, May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3MRVkLf.

[15] Information shared by Chios UNCHR Field Office during GCR mission (January 2024).

[16] Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) / PRO ASYL, What is happening today in the refugee structures on the Aegean islands – Serious problems in the EU-funded structures, May 2023, pp. 46-47, available at: https://tinyurl.com/ycy45tjs.

[17] GCR, Press Release: European Court of Human Rights condemns Greece for the degrading living conditions of a young single woman refugee in Samos, 18 December 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3rj6r2a3.

[18] Joint Statement of 20 civil society organisations, NOT AGAIN IN 2024 – Call for upholding human rights in the Samos Closed Controlled Access Centre, 31 January 2024, pp. 1-4, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3dxhybnk. 

[19] GCR / OXFAM, Inquiry on Fundamental Rights in the EU-funded Migration Facilities on the Greek Islands / Case OI/3/2022/MHZ, Joint submission to the European Ombudsman, p. 15, available at: https://tinyurl.com/bd4wpe3d.

[20] Information provided by a representative of the Administration during the GCR mission to Kos on 6 December 2023.

[21] GCR / OXFAM, Inquiry on Fundamental Rights in the EU-funded Migration Facilities on the Greek Islands / Case OI/3/2022/MHZ, Joint submission to the European Ombudsman, p. 13, available at: https://tinyurl.com/bd4wpe3d.

[22] GCR, Press release, Absolutely inadequate conditions in the new Closed Controlled Access Center (CCAC) of Kos: The European Court of Human Rights has granted Interim Measures, 14 December 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/46rjsrjr.

[23] Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) / PRO ASYL, What is happening today in the refugee structures on the Aegean islands – Serious problems in the EU-funded structures, May 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/ycy45tjs, p. 50.

[24] Letter of 16 non-governmental organisations to the authorities, Human Rights, But Not for All: Open Letter on Access to Food and Medical Care in Lesvos Closed Controlled Access Center, 12 December 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mv4xmram.

[25] FENIX – Humanitarian Legal Aid, Unrecognised Vulnerability- Greece’s systematic failure to identify and certify Victims of Torture, April 2023, pp. 13-14, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mwpxajcv.

[26] FENIX – Humanitarian Legal Aid, Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking of Forcibly Displaced Persons in Greece and Turkiye, October 2023, p. 46, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5ekpxev9.

[27] Refugee Support Aegean-RSA, Rhodes: Newly arrived refugees with no shelter and adequate food, at the mercy of winter, 21 December 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/448Y5Pt.

[28] Refugee Support Aegean-RSA, Crete and Gavdos have no reception and identification procedures despite the increased arrivals, 19 December 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/49Noq6L.

[29] This act is based on Article 45 L. 4636/2019. It is worth noting that the act mentions that the geographical restriction is necessary for the implementation of the EU-Türkiye statement.

[30] Except for the case of vulnerable persons and persons in need of special reception conditions, the geographical restriction may be lifted in the case of: a. unaccompanied minors; b. persons falling under the family reunification provisions of Articles 8-11 of Dublin Regulation, only after the person is accepted by the concerned member state; and c. persons whose applications for international protection are reasonably considered to be founded.

[31] See Article 67 (2) L. 4636/2019 and Article 2 (d) of the Ministerial Decision 1140/2.12.2019.

[32] According to Article 67 (2) L. 4636/2019, ‘[w]here applicants have been identified as applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, they shall be provided with adequate support in order to allow them to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations of this Part throughout the duration of the procedure. Forms of adequate support shall, in particular, consist of additional break times during the personal interview in accordance with Article 77, allowing the applicant to move during the personal interview if this is necessary because of his or her health condition, as well as showing leniency to non-major inaccuracies and contradictions, where these are related to his/her health condition.’

[33] Correct repetition of Circular 411695/2021, 24 November 2021, available at: MOMA, Press release: Procedure for Submitting Asylum Claims, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2kyervyc/.

[34] Efsyn, Μόνο σε νησιά και Έβρο τα νέα αιτήματα ασύλου, 24 November 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3t5Y4h2.

[35] MOMA, Ξεκινά η λειτουργία της πλατφόρμας ηλεκτρονικής αίτησης για ραντεβού καταγραφής αιτούντων άσυλο, 13 July 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3Rw9HXO.

[36] Mobile Info Team (MIT), Blocked from the System: Voices of People Excluded from the Asylum Procedure on Mainland Greece, Crete and Rhodes, May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/45wetd3.

[37] GCR, Submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the groups of cases of M.S.S. v. Greece (Application No. 30696/09) and Rahimi v. Greece (8687/08), July 2023, p. 3, available at: https://bit.ly/4b3Q3JR.

[38] Refugee Legal Support / Mobile Info Team, Protection Unavailable: Dysfunctional Practices and Restrictions on the Right to Asylum Assessing the implementation of reception and identification procedures on mainland Greece, November 2023, p. 32 et al., available at: https://tinyurl.com/yrsjp5xa.

[39] Article 77(3) Asylum Code.

[40] METAdrasi, Hope and Memory : Identification and certification of victims of torture, available at: https://bit.ly/3JQEFFP.

[41] FENIX – Humanitarian Legal Aid, Unrecognised Vulnerability- Greece’s systematic failure to identify and certify Victims of Torture, pp. 6-7, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mwpxajcv.

[42] Office of The National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings, web page, available at: https://bit.ly/3T60ZRw.

[43] Joint Ministerial Decision 9889/2020, Gov. Gazette 3390/Β/13-8-2020.

[44] See Article 1(3) JMD 9889/2020.

[45] See Art 4 JMD 9889/2020.

[46] See Article 1(5)(a) JMD 9889/2020.

[47] See Art. 1(5)(b) JMD 9889/2020.

[48] See Art 1(5)(c) JMD 9889/2020. Contrary to MD 92490/2013 and JMD 1982/2016 which provided for left wrist, hand X-rays, dental examination and panoramic dental X- rays cumulatively and not alternatively.

[49] See Presidential Decision 77/2023 (Government Gazette A’ 130/ 27-06-2023), available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/4b7MkL8.  

[50] See Art. 1(9) JMD 9889/2020.

[51] Response rot.no 472645, 20 October 2023, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/yc4tut2x  , p.4

[52] Greek Ombudsman, The Challenge of Migratory Flows and Refugee Protection Reception Conditions and Procedures, April 2024, available in English and Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/546kmb76, see in particular pp. 150-152

[53] One doctor being a general practitioner and the other a urologist.

[54] Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid, Age Assessment Procedures on Lesvos: a Dead Letter, January 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5ek48wfu.

[55] Greek Ombudsman, The Challenge of Migratory Flows and Refugee Protection Reception Conditions and Procedures, April 2024, available in English and Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/546kmb76, p. 151.

[56] See GCR, HIAS, RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report (Δελτίο Νομολογίας Ασύλου in Greek) issue 2, 2023, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/mp8s6jk6 , pp. 26-27.

[57] Article 84(4) of the Asylum Code.

[58] See also GCR, Without papers, there’s no life: Legal barriers in access to protection for unaccompanied children in Greece, July 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/y6fb7zh5  ,p. 7.

[59] Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service No 3153, Gov. Gazette Β’ 310/02.02.2018.

[60] Article 80(3) Asylum Code.

[61] For a detailed description of the problems related with the age assessment on Lesvos Island, see Fenix, A Child’s Best Interests? Rights Violations in the Absence of Presumption of Minority, 13 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3ACqq2t.