Author
Identification
The Refugee Law defines the categories of persons considered as vulnerable. These are similar to Article 21 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive:[1]
“[M]inors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking, persons with serious illnesses, persons with mental disorders and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation.”
Screening of vulnerability
The Refugee Law provides for an identification mechanism. An individual assessment is to be carried out to determine whether a person has special reception needs and/or requires special procedural guarantees, and the nature of those needs.[2] These individualised assessments should be performed within a reasonable time period during the early stages of the asylum procedure. Furthermore, the requirement to address special reception needs and/or special procedural guarantees applies at any time such needs are identified or ascertained.
The Refugee Law also provides that any special reception/procedural needs of applicants, identified by any competent governmental authority upon exercising its duties, need to be reported to the Asylum Service. It also provides a basic overview of the procedure to be followed: the competent officer at the place where the claim of asylum is made fills out a special document indicating any special needs and the nature of such needs.[3]
Furthermore, the Refugee Law provides that during the preliminary medical tests, which are performed on all asylum applicants, a report is to be prepared by the examining doctor, a psychologist, or another expert, to indicate any special reception/procedural needs of the applicant and their nature. Furthermore, within a reasonable time period from the admission of a claimant in a reception centre and following personal interviews, the social workers and psychologists working in the facility are to prepare a relevant report to the Asylum Service indicating any special reception needs as well as their nature. Finally, the Social Welfare Services (SWS) are required to identify any special reception needs and to report them to the Asylum Service, but this applies only in case an asylum applicant presents themself to Social Services and “whenever this is possible”.[4]
The above provisions acknowledge the need for identifying and addressing in a timely manner the special reception and procedural needs of vulnerable persons and introduce a basic framework of operation, as noted also by EUAA in the 2021 operating plan.[5] However, further elaboration is required in order for an effective mechanism to be set up. In the absence of specific legislative or procedural guidelines, the identification and assessment of special reception and procedural needs has taken place inconsistently, while the assessment tools and approaches to be used were not defined nor standardised.[6] Specifically, there is no provision for training of the staff engaged in the identification and assessment procedure, and the role of Social Welfare and Health Services – the most competent State authorities in relation to evaluating the needs of vulnerable persons – is rather confined. No monitoring mechanism of the overall procedure is foreseen which could contribute to efficient and timely coordination among the involved agencies. The lack of effective measures for identifying vulnerable persons was raised in the 2019 review on Cyprus by the UN Committee against Torture, specifically the lack of procedures to identify, assess, and address the specific needs of asylum applicants, including survivors of torture.[7]
In an effort to address the issue in 2019, the Asylum Service started screenings of vulnerabilities at the First Reception Centre ‘Pournara’. However, these were not full assessments, and the results indicated that cases were going unidentified. From March 2019 onwards, the Cyprus Refugee Council carried out vulnerability assessments at the Centre using relevant UNHCR tools and, through this process, identified and referred to the responsible authorities a significant number of vulnerable persons, which confirmed the need for an identification and assessment mechanism. From mid-2019 onwards, efforts were initiated by the Asylum Service and the EUAA, in collaboration with UNHCR and the Cyprus Refugee Council, to set up a comprehensive vulnerability assessment procedure at Pournara were the registration of the vast majority of asylum applicants takes place. This has included the development of a common tool for screening and assessment of vulnerable persons, a Standard Operating Procedure, and a team of vulnerability examiners to carry out the assessments. Vulnerability examiners receive training under relevant EUAA modules, however at times there has been insufficient supervision and coordination of the team as well as high turnover of staff.
In 2022, the vulnerability assessment team comprised of 10 vulnerability officers: 5 officers from EUAA; 3 officers from CODECA (the organization contracted to manage Pournara); 1 officer from UNHCR; 1 officer from CyRC and a coordinator appointed by EUAA. As in previous years, there was still a lack of a comprehensive SoPs and referral pathways and results in vulnerability assessments, and referrals were often carried out in a non-uniform manner. Furthermore, there was no system in place for quality control of the vulnerability assessments to ensure the efficacy of the findings and referrals. In addition, there continued to be a high turnover among vulnerability officers, however an improvement has been noted in the training and guidance offered to newly recruited/assigned staff. In an effort to address the above mentioned, the vulnerability team conducts meetings (approximately once or twice per month) to discuss guidelines on identifying vulnerabilities, guidelines on interviewing (i.e., families; single parents with minor children), as well as to discuss other issues that arise, including challenging cases identified. Furthermore, a training seminar on Trafficking in Human Beings was organised by EUAA for all vulnerability officers. EUAA is currently designing SoP for vulnerability assessments with clear instructions on procedures, vulnerability indicators, and instructions for identification.
In 2022, 2,800 persons were identified as vulnerable during the registration of their asylum application.[8]
In early 2023, the EUAA in collaboration with the Asylum Service finalised the SoPs for the identification of vulnerable persons in Pournara. According to the new procedure, a flagging (screening) system has been introduced to prioritise individuals with vulnerabilities. Specifically, upon entry and registration, all individuals receive a short interview by EUAA officers. The interview includes questions regarding personal data and information about relatives in the EU for the Dublin procedure. Furthermore, persons are requested to briefly state the reasons they left their country and based on their response they may be flagged as vulnerable. Only individuals that fall into the following categories are flagged: women, single parents (both men and women), victims of human trafficking, accompanied minors, unaccompanied minors, applicants who are survivors of rape and sexual violence, applicants who are survivors of psychological or physical violence, applicants who are survivors of shipwreck, applicants who are victims of torture, applicants who are elderly (65+), applicants with incurable serious diseases, applicants with mental illnesses, applicants with physical disabilities, women with new-borns, and pregnant women.
Only persons who are flagged as vulnerable will then undergo a vulnerability assessment by the vulnerability assessment team. In 2023, the UN Human Rights Committee raised concerns that not all asylum-seekers at Pournara reception centre undergo a vulnerability assessment and recommended that measures are strengthened to ensure early identification, referral, assistance and support for all vulnerable asylum-seekers, including by establishing a formal and comprehensive procedure for identifying, assessing and addressing the specific needs of vulnerable asylum-seekers. [9]
For the first half of 2023 the vulnerability assessment team comprised of 6 vulnerability officers: 4 from EUAA; 1 officer from UNHCR; 1 officer from CyRC, and a coordinator appointed by EUAA. In the second half of 2023, the members of the vulnerability assessment team from EUAA were reduced to 3 officers. In 2024,
In 2023, a total of 3,839 vulnerability assessments were carried out in Pournara during the registration of their asylum application and 2,706 persons were identified as vulnerable. In 2024, a total of 2,654 vulnerability assessments were carried out in Pournara during the registration of their asylum application and 2,309 persons were identified as vulnerable.[10]
The EUAA supports and coordinates vulnerability assessments in Pournara reception centre. In this context, during 2024, 2,561 persons were identified as presenting vulnerability indicators.[11]
The new procedure also includes a referral procedure when special procedural and/or reception needs are identified. For this purpose, a new Referral Form has been introduced that is attached to the vulnerability assessment Form. This is to be completed when the vulnerability officer identifies such needs and can include procedural guarantees such us prioritization of an asylum interview or specific interpretation needs, specific reception needs (accommodation, disability mobility assistance) and other needs such as medical or psychological support. The time needed for the action is also indicated (i.e., urgent, medium urgency, etc).
In practice, however, significant gaps remain to address the identified needs and often persons are identified as vulnerable but do not necessarily receive the required support, whether special reception conditions and/or procedural guarantees. In May 2023, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Pournara. The CPT found that the quality of certain initial assessments, such as the vulnerability assessment procedures, were of a good standard, despite the impact of delays in receiving the results. Nevertheless, once identified as vulnerable, rather than being placed in “safe zones”, these persons were still subject to the substandard living conditions and poor general regime while very few protective safeguards were afforded and there was no apparent follow-through and regular check-up on those persons found to be vulnerable.[12]
The main – and often only – support received is temporary accommodation and emergency financial allowances upon exiting Pournara by the Social Welfare Services. However, even this is not always provided, and in many cases, vulnerable individuals are released from Pournara without being assisted by an officer of the Social Welfare Services stationed at the centre. The lack of an effective referral system combined with the serious gaps in the reception system and in the provision of material reception conditions leave many vulnerable persons in extremely dire situations (see section Reception Conditions).[13]
Regarding, access to mental health services, particularly psychological assistance, is also problematic, as there is no system to refer cases to State psychologists and the capacity of such services is often not sufficient to respond to the needs and lack interpretation services. Furthermore, there are every few NGOs offering such services, and they cannot respond to the demand. In cases of severe mental health difficulties or emergency needs, e.g., risks or attempts of suicide, the person is referred to a psychiatrist at the Emergency department of the General Hospital.
Concerning potential victims of trafficking, due to lack of training and expertise among staff, it had been noted that a very low number of cases were identified and referred. From mid-2021 onwards and following trainings on human trafficking offered by EUAA to the vulnerability assessment team the number of referrals to the National Trafficking Mechanism have increased. The referred potential victims are interviewed by an officer of the Social Welfare Services, are informed of their rights and offered assistance, usually similar to other groups of vulnerable individuals (accommodation and emergency financial allowance). The referral forms are then forwarded to the Anti-trafficking Unit of the Police for the examination of the trafficking claims. A person should be identified as a possible VoT and referred to be examined and assessed by the Police regardless of the prospect of investigation and prosecution. However, in practice during the assessment procedure carried out by the Police, the prospect of investigation and prosecution does impact the chances of being recognised as a VoT, especially since in many cases exploitation took place in the areas not under the control of the RoC and Police cannot carry out investigations.[14]
In 2024, 83 persons were identified as potential victims of trafficking during the vulnerability assessment procedure in Pournara, compared to 133 in 2023.[15]
In 2024, the IPAC annulled an Asylum Service decision to reject international protection to a Cameroonian woman as it found substantial procedural shortcomings in the investigation of the possibility that the applicant is a victim of human trafficking. The IPAC noted that upon registration of the application for asylum, a vulnerability assessment had been carried out, however, the competent officer had not asked any questions regarding the circumstances of her trip to Cyprus and her stay in the areas not controlled by Cyprus. The IPAC highlighted in this respect that the profile of the applicant as a woman who travelled alone, originating from Cameroon – a country known for high rates of trafficking – as well as her prolonged stay in areas not controlled by the Republic were sufficient indicators to investigate whether the applicant was subjected to trafficking in human beings. The judge annulled the decision of the Asylum Service and ordered the following actions: To take the necessary steps to examine, through the competent authorities, the possibility that the applicant was a victim of trafficking in persons. To evaluate, through the appropriate channel, the psychiatric/psychological condition of the applicant. To examine the necessity of conducting a new substantive interview, after receiving the conclusions of the above-mentioned experts and after providing the appropriate procedural guarantees.[16]
Regarding procedural guarantees even when cases are identified that justify prioritization this is not always possible due to the extremely high backlog. Furthermore, the lack of access to psychological or legal support often effects the ability of vulnerable persons, such as victims of torture or violence, to present their case adequately. However, the increase in referrals of such cases to the team of examiners with the necessary training is a positive development and the increase of examiners in Pournara has led to some cases of vulnerable persons exiting Pournara as BIPs. [17]
Overall identification of vulnerabilities and needs has improved significantly however the response to the identified needs remains a serious gap.
Age assessment of unaccompanied children
Under the Refugee Law, the Asylum Service may use medical examinations to determine the age of an unaccompanied child, in the context of the examination of the asylum application when, following general statements or other relevant evidence, there are doubts about the age of the applicant.[18] If, after conducting the medical examination, there are still doubts about the age of the applicant, then the applicant is considered to be minor. Furthermore, the law provides that any medical examination shall be performed in full respect of the child’s dignity, carried out by selecting the least invasive examinations, and by trained professionals in the health sector so as to achieve the most reliable results possible.
The Asylum Service also has the obligation to ensure that unaccompanied children are informed prior to the examination of the application, in a language which they understand or are reasonably supposed to understand, about the possibility of age determination by medical examinations. This should include information on the method of examination, the potential impact of the results on the examination of their application, and the impact of any refusal of an unaccompanied child to undergo medical examinations. Furthermore, the Asylum Service must ensure that the unaccompanied child and/or representatives have consented to the carrying out of examinations to determine the age of the child. Lastly, the decision rejecting an asylum application of an unaccompanied child who has refused to undergo such medical examinations shall not be based solely on that refusal.[19]
In 2023, an amendment was made to the Refugee Law and a provision was added according to which in the event of the applicant’s refusal to consent to an examination, the person in question shall be presumed to be an adult. At any subsequent stage, the applicant shall have the right to submit additional evidence as to their age and/or to request a medical examination to determine their age, which the Asylum Service must examine.[20] The provision is intended to address possible abuse of the system where adult applicants may falsely be claiming to be minors, however concerns were raised by the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child, UNHCR, and national NGOs on the necessity of the provision and whether it is in line with EU and International Law and standards.[21]
In practice, not all unaccompanied children are sent for an age assessment. In 2024, of the applications submitted by UASC, 191 were referred for an age assessment[22] which is an increase from 2022 and 2023, however it is not clear whether this is a result of the above-mentioned amendment to the Law. Those for whom there are doubts will first have an interview, considered by the authorities as a psychosocial assessment, to determine if they should be sent for medical examinations. The psychosocial assessment is carried out by an Asylum Service caseworker, in the presence of a social worker/guardian and it mostly consists of taking down facts to assess whether these are consistent with the claim of being underage. The caseworker carrying out the assessment must have received training for this purpose but is not necessarily a qualified social worker or psychologist. The assessment also includes questions related to the asylum application.[23] In Dublin cases, a child may be sent for medical examination when the country to which they are to transfer requires a medical age assessment as part of the examination of the Dublin request. The medical examination is comprised of a wrist X-ray, a jaw-line X-ray, and a dental examination. A clinical examination by an endocrinologist to determine the stage of development, upon consent of the child, is also mentioned in the procedure. However, in practice such an examination is not used due to the invasive nature.[24]
Doctors carrying out the dental examinations have been trained by the EUAA. However, the training of all professionals carrying out age assessments does not seem to be ongoing and it is not clear if any of the doctors have since changed or if there has been further training.[25]
Furthermore, a decision finding an asylum applicant to be an adult cannot be challenged administratively or judicially in itself but can only be challenged judicially when the asylum claim is rejected and as part of the appeal challenging the negative decision of the asylum application. Due to this, the Asylum Service does not provide access to the file and documents relevant to the age assessment until and in case of an appeal. Where results confirm the individual to be an adult and these results are communicated orally to the applicant, they are usually assisted in applying for material reception conditions and asked to leave the shelter for children as soon as possible.[26] In 2024, a Supreme Court decision confirmed that the age determination procedure and its result of classifying an asylum applicant as an adult is not in itself an administrative decision that can be challenged in court. Instead, the Supreme Court stated that the age determination procedure is an interim and preparatory decision that is part of the asylum application examination procedure and as such can be challenged along with the decision concerning the asylum claim of the applicant.[27]
The Commissioner of Children’s Rights issued an updated report on age assessment of unaccompanied children at the end of 2018,[28] in which she stated that the procedure that had been adopted from 2014 onwards was a positive development.[29] However, she noted important gaps that still remain, such as: the lack of an overall multidisciplinary approach to the procedure and the decision, especially noting the gaps in the psychosocial aspect of these; the absence of best interest determinations when deciding to initiate the age assessment procedure; the lack of remedy to challenge the decision that determines the age; issues relating to the role of the guardian and the representative in the age assessment procedures; and the conflict of interest that arises as both roles are carried out by the same authority. Attention was also paid to the lack of independence of both of these roles as they act on behalf of the national authority they represent. Since the Commissioner’s report, no improvements have been noted and the issues raised by the the latter remain concerning.
In 2024, the UN Economic and Social Council recommended that the RoC continues its efforts to ensure that an age assessment is undertaken only in case of serious doubt about the age of the person concerned.[30]
In 2021, the IPAC issued a decision concerning an appeal submitted by a Somali national in 2016 against the first instance rejection of their asylum application. The judge concluded that the age assessment procedure was erroneous and that the principle of the best interest of the child had been violated due to the fact that the age assessment had been initiated by the applicant’s guardian, who by law is supposed to act on the best interest of the child; the age assessment was conducted without giving the applicant the right to a hearing instead medical exams were opted for; the medical report indicating that the applicant was likely an adult contained an element of doubt as to its accuracy. Thus, the age assessment decision was void, illegal and lacking any legal basis. As a result, the procedures that followed, namely processing of the application for international protection of the applicant under the consideration that he is an adult lacked any legal basis and was cancelled.[31]
In 2022, another decision was issued by the IPAC related to the age assessment procedure, where the Court annulled a decision of the Asylum Service due to deficiencies identified in the age assessment procedure and failures to observe required safeguards and the best interest of the child.[32] Specifically, the Court referred to the CJEU judgement A. and S. v Secretary of State for Security and Justice (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie) and explained that the date of filing the application for international protection is the one decisive in order to assess the refugee’s age with regard to the application of the family reunification procedure, and the authorities should have referred to the applicant’s age at the time of submitting/filing his application and not at the time of the medical examinations. Consequently, according to the minimum assessment limit of the method in question, the applicant may have been a minor at the time of the submission of his asylum application and the doubt has to be in favour of the minor, according to the Refugee Law. Based on these considerations and the deficiencies identified, the Court annulled the contested decision of the Asylum Service.
| Unaccompanied asylum-applicants children in Cyprus: 2019-2024 | |||||
| 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |
| Applied for asylum | 308 | 659 | 941 | 957 | 656 |
| Referred for age assessment | 66 | 59 | 109 | 188 | 191 |
| Referred for medical examinations | 55 | 40 | 71 | 128 | 140 |
| Found to be adults | 43 | 33 | 30 | 94 | 91 |
Source: 2020, 2021 Social Welfare Services; 2022, 2023, 2024 Asylum Service.
In 2022, 109 UASC were referred for age assessment, out of which 71 UASC were further referred for medical examinations as part of the age assessment. Of the 71 UASC, 16 were found to be minors, 30 were found to be adults, 22 refused to sign consent to undergo the medical examinations, 1 admitted to being over 18 and 2 are pending results.[33]
In 2023, 188 UASC were referred for age assessment, out of which 128 UASC were further referred for medical examinations as part of the age assessment. Of the 128 UASC, 27 were found to be minors, 94 were found to be adults, 6 refused to sign consent to undergo the medical examinations, and 1 withdrew their application.[34]
In 2024, 191 UASC were referred for age assessment, out of which 140 UASC were further referred for medical examinations as part of the age assessment. Of these 140 UASC, 48 were found to be minors, 91 were found to be adults.[35]
[1] Article 9KΓ Refugee Law.
[2]Articles 9KΔ(a) and 10A Refugee Law.
[3] Article 9KΔ Refugee Law.
[4] Ibid.
[5] EASO, EASO Operating plan 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/4avqnG9.
[6] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council
[7] UN CAT, Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of Cyprus, December 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/49EGAYh.
[8] Cyprus Asylum Service.
[9] UN, CCPR Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Cyprus, September 2023, available here
[10] Information provided by Cyprus Asylum Service.
[11] Information provided by the EUAA, 14 March 2025.
[12] CPT, Report to the Government of Cyprus on the visit to Cyprus carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 9 to 17 May 2023, available here.
[13] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Information provided by Cyprus Asylum Service.
[16] IPAC, F.E.A. v. RoC via Asylum Service, No. Application: 6696/2021, available here.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Article 10(1Z)(a) Refugee Law.
[19] Article 10(1H) Refugee Law.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Reporter, Parliament voted in favor of a law that attempts to deal with the abuse of the protection system for unaccompanied children who request international protection by adults, 13 July 2023, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/43559msb.
[22] Information provided by Asylum Service.
[23] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.
[24] Commissioner of Children’s Rights, Έκθεση της Επιτρόπου Προστασίας των Δικαιωμάτων του Παιδιού, Λήδας Κουρσουμπά, αναφορικά με την εκτίμηση της ηλικίας των ασυνόδευτων ανηλίκων αιτητών ασύλου, December 2018, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/2U2P7hW, pp. 18 and 32.
[25] Ibid., p. 29.
[26] Information provided by Cyprus Refugee Council.
[27] Supreme Court, Republic of Cyprus through the Asylum Service v. Said Abdulle, Appeal against the IPAC decision, Application No.40/2022, 20 December 2024.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Commissioner of Children’s Rights, Position Paper on the first-stage handling of cases of unaccompanied minors, The results of the investigation of complaints, consultation with NGOs and interviews with unaccompanied minors, November 2014, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/3t7rktxf.
[30] UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Cyprus, October 2024, available here.
[31] IPAC Case no. 601/2016, Y.D.M.O v. Asylum Service, Decision issued 31 December 2021. IPAC Case no. 1475/2022, C.M. v. Asylum Service, Decision issued 9 December 2024.
[32] IPAC, Case No 698/19, S.A. v Republic of Cyprus, through the Asylum Service Decision issued 7 July 2022.
[33] Cyprus Asylum Service.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.