Admissibility procedure

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

General (scope, criteria, time limits)

Under Article 89 Asylum Code, an application can be considered inadmissible on the following grounds:

• Another EU Member State has granted international protection status to the applicant;
• Another EU Member State has accepted responsibility under the Dublin Regulation for the applicant;
• When the First Country of Asylum concept is applied;
• When the Safe Third Country concept is applied;
• The application is a Subsequent Application and no “new essential elements” have been presented;
• A family member has submitted a separate application to the family application without justification for lodging a separate claim.

Unless otherwise provided, the Asylum Service must decide on the admissibility of an application within 30 days.^[1]

The safe third country concept and its application vis à vis Türkiye

Article 91(5) Asylum Code, transposing Article 38(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive), provides that where the third country to which an applicant is meant to be returned does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, their application shall be examined on the merits by the Competent Examination Authorities.

In practice, the examination of the safe third country concept used to take place under the scope of the fast-track border procedure since 2016. More specifically, up until June 2021 it was applied exclusively to Syrian nationals who fell under the EU-Türkiye Statement, meaning those who had entered Greece via the Aegean islands and who were subject to a geographical restriction. Syrians whose geographical restriction was lifted were then channelled to the mainland and were examined under the regular procedure. The situation changed significantly in 2021 following the designation of Türkiye as a safe third country (STC) for asylum applicants coming from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh pursuant to JMD 42799/2021.^[2]

Apart from the numerous concerns that have been repeatedly raised as to whether Türkiye can be considered a “safe third country”,^[3] an additional significant element of the unfeasibility of this decision has been the fact that Türkiye has not been accepting any readmissions from Greece since March 2020.[4] As a consequence, the concept has since been applied in breach of Article 38(4) APD, with applicants whose applications have been/are rejected as inadmissible based on Türkiye’s designation as a “safe third country” ending up in a state of protracted legal limbo, which exposes them to a direct risk of destitution and detention.

The issue has consistently drawn the attention of national, UN and EU bodies, including the European Commission, with the previous Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs having on several occasions reiterated the importance of examining the merits of these applications for international protection, in accordance with EU law. As noted by Commissioner Johansson on 7 December 2021 in response to a joint open letter by civil society organisations, “in line with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, the Greek authorities should ensure that applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible under the Joint Ministerial Decision and who are not being admitted to Türkiye should be given access to the in-merits asylum procedure”.[5] Yet despite the pressure and the ongoing lack of any reasonable prospect of return to Türkiye, the Greek authorities continued examining and rejecting applications on this basis up to at least early 2025, although the practice appears to have stopped since early 2025, following a Rulling by the Greek Council of State (CoS).

Namely, on 21 March 2025, the CoS in its decision ΟλΣτΕ 1048/2025 annulled the JMD designating Türkiye as a “safe third country”, following applications for annulment against the Joint Ministerial Decision 42799/2021 submitted and legally represented by the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) and Refugee Support Aegean (RSA).[6]

The Court held that the JMD, and thus, the national list of safe third countries, should be annulled in respect of the designation of Türkiye as a safe third country, because there was not sufficient documentation and justification for the designation of Türkiye as a “safe third country” in the reasoning of the joint ministerial decision, which cited limited international sources “without specifically evaluating the information contained therein against the criteria set forth in the law, so as to substantiate the legal requirements for the designation”. Moreover, in related decisions issued by the same Plenary of the Council of State concerning individual cases brought before it, it was ruled that the individual decisions of the Independent Appeals Committees rejecting the applicants on the ground that they had entered Greece from Türkiye should be annulled. As noted, “[s]ince it is apparent from the information in the file that Türkiye has generally suspended the readmission of applicants for international protection to its territory since March 2020, the competent Greek authorities cannot, as the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 4 October 2024 in Case C-134/23, reject applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(1)(b) of the ECHR. 2(c) of Directive 2013/32/EU and the corresponding provision of national law on the ground that Turkey is a safe third country.”

The application for annulment of the JMD was initially submitted before the Greek Council of State (CoS) in 2022 and was discussed on 11 March 2022.^[7] In a decision issued on 3 February 2023,^[8] the CoS had referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 38 Directive 2013/32/EU. The majority opinion of the CoS had considered that it is not possible to designate a third country as safe if the readmission of the applicant to that country does not appear to be possible, as in view of Article 18 of the Charter, this would be contrary to “the purported objective of the Directive”, as set out in recital 18, “to safeguard rapid examination of applications for international protection insofar as possible (see CJEU, C-556/17 Torubarov, 29 July 2019, paragraph 53)”. As noted, “[a] contrary reading would merely prolong the duration of examination of the submitted application for international protection and uncertainty on the applicant as regards the status of their stay in the country where they submitted an application, without excluding the risk of their refoulement to a country where they risk facing persecution (mutatis mutandis European Commission on Human Rights, A.H. [Harabi] v. the Netherlands, App No 10798/84, 5 March 1986) and the possibility of disruption in international relations of states”.[9]

The decision included two dissenting opinions on whether the non-implementation of readmission should be taken into consideration at the time of issuance of an individual decision on the asylum application assessing whether Türkiye is a safe third country, or at the time of executing the return decision and not before including this country in the national list of safe third countries.

Given that reasonable doubts arose as to the meaning of Article 38 of the Directive, the Court postponed its final judgement and formulated preliminary questions to the CJEU. In particular, the CoS had asked whether:

• the provisions of Article 38 of Directive 2013/32 precluded a State from designating, by an act of general application, a third country as a safe, when that country had already previously suspended in practice the readmission of applicants to its territory.
• alternatively, whether that condition of possibility of readmission to the third country ought to be examined before the adoption of an individual decision rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible under the concept of “safe third country” or only at the time of the execution of that decision.

The preliminary questions were discussed in an oral hearing before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 14 March 2024.^[10] On 4 October 2024, the CJEU, in line with the Advocate’s General Opinion,[11] ruled that Member States cannot issue a decision rejecting an asylum application as inadmissible on the basis of the “safe third country” concept in cases where they have established that the asylum seeker will not be allowed to enter the territory of the country designated as safe. The Court accepted, however, that a country may be listed as a safe third country even if, despite its legal obligation, that third country has, in general and without any prospect of a contrary development, suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory.

In its judgment, the CJEU held, in the context of examining the first question, that:

• Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from designating a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection, even if that third country has suspended, in general terms and without any prospect of a contrary development, the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory.
• Member States may not, however, issue a decision rejecting an application for asylum as inadmissible on the basis of the ‘safe third country’ concept where they have established that the applicant will not be allowed to enter the territory of the country designated as safe.

Therefore, the decision on the existence or not of the possibility of readmission to the third country, in this case Türkiye, becomes a prerequisite at the stage of issuing the decision on the asylum application and not at the stage of its execution, as has been the practice followed to date by the Asylum Service, and in most cases the Independent Appeals Committees. It should be noted that these decisions of the national authorities, based on the Proposals of the same Advocate General in Cases C 924/19 PPU and C 925/19 PPU, overwhelmingly interpreted, incorrectly, that the condition of effective or not readmission to the third country is reviewed not at the stage of issuance, but at the stage of execution of the decision declaring an application for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country clause.

It should be recalled that the majority of the Plenary of the CoS, in the above-mentioned judgment, interpreted Article 38 of the Directive, taking into account the provision of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which safeguards the right to asylum, in a way that serves the purpose pursued by the Directive.

The CJEU’s judgment is of major importance because it overturned the practice followed by the Greek authorities for many years – i.e. indiscriminate rejection of asylum applications as inadmissible under the safe third country concept – and put an end to the denial of the rights of thousands of applicants, by prohibiting their rejection when there is no possibility of their readmission to the ‘safe third country’, in this case, Türkiye.[12] Despite this lack of return prospect, many RAOs continued to issue inadmissibility decisions based on the existence of a link with Türkiye, disregarding the practical impossibility of returning applicants there.[13]

The JMD 42799 of 3 June 2021 declaring Türkiye as a safe third country was amended by Decision No. 458568/2021 (FEK 5949/16-12-2021) to include Albania and Northern Macedonia as safe third countries for all nationals entering Greece from the countries listed.^[14] In December 2022, JMD 734214/6-12-2022 was issued, confirming the continuity and full validity of the amended JMD ^[15] Respectively, in December 2023, JMD 538595/12-12-2023 (FEK 7063/15-12-2023) was issued, following the 485728/31-10-2023 “Recommendation regarding the establishment of the national list of safe third countries according to Article 91 Law 4939/2022” of the Director of the Asylum Service, repeating the content of the amended JMD ^[16] There have been no subsequent JMDs issued after December 2023 regarding the designation of safe third countries.[17]

According to the data released by the ΜοΜΑ for the period from January to December 2025, a total of 464 asylum applications were found inadmissible at first instance based on the “safe third country” (STC) concept, marking close to an 80% decrease compared to 2024 (2,143 inadmissible decisions based on the STC concept), albeit it is not specified to what extent these concerned Albania and Norther Macedonia as opposed to Türkiye. Additionally, a total of 104 applications were found inadmissible at second instance based on the application of the same concept, of which 11 concerned Albania, 27 Northern Macedonia and 66 Türkiye.[18]

After the annulment by the CoS in March 2025, the administration issued a new ministerial decision in April 2025 of the same content of the annulled one naming Türkiye as a safe third country. The action of the administration was condemned by civil society as violating the Greek Constitution, constuting a clear refusal to comply with the decisions of the Grand Chamber of the Court published simultaneously in individual cases, which ruled, in accordance with the judgment of the CJEU (Case C-134/23). Procedures for the annulment of this new JMD were initiated by GCR and RSA in June 2025.[19]

Personal interview

The conduct of an interview on the admissibility procedure varies depending on the admissibility ground examined.

According to Article 94(2) Asylum Code, as a rule, no interview should be held during the preliminary examination of a subsequent application. The examination of a subsequent application takes place only through written submissions and submitted documents together with the elements of the first asylum application. The interview is conducted only if the subsequent application for asylum is deemed admissible (see section on Subsequent Applications). As regards the process for Dublin cases, see section on Dublin.

Personal interviews in cases examined under the “safe third country” concept focus on the circumstances that the applicants face in Türkiye and specifically on:

• whether they have applied for international protection in Türkiye and;
• if not, which reasons prevented them from doing so;
• whether they have family and friends in Türkiye;
• how long they remained in Türkiye;
• if they had access to work, housing, education and health care;
• and in general, if Türkiye is a safe country for them.

Significant emphasis has been placed on evaluating the applicant’s connection to Türkiye. This assessment considers factors such as the duration of their residence in Türkiye and the presence of family members within the country. In many instances, the presence of a link serves as the sole and determining factor in deciding admissibility or inadmissibility.

According to internal SOPs, circulated within the Asylum Service in the autumn of 2021, asylum applicants from the 5 nationalities affected by the JMD (Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh), who have entered Greece from Türkiye and have stayed in Greece for a year or more must be considered as not having a special link/connection with the third country (i.e., Türkiye) or that in any case the special link/connection has ceased to exist (See Safe third country).  In some cases, the above-mentioned internal directive is strictly applied without taking into account any substantive criteria. As a result, asylum applications from people who are only a few days away from the end of their one-year stay in Greece can be rejected as inadmissible. In September 2024, the Appeals Authority rejected the appeal of an asylum applicant who had left Türkiye and stayed in Greece for one year minus six days from the date of the Appeals Authority’s decision.^[20]

Moreover, it has been observed that stateless persons who had one of the 5 countries of the JMD on STC as their country of former habitual residence continued to be included in the admissibility procedure in 2024.^[21] This practice applied despite the fact that this category of asylum applicants is not explicitly mentioned in the relevant JMD designating Türkiye as an STC. In this context, Palestinians with last habitual residence in Syria were examined under the admissibility procedure.

According to observations made by legal aid organisations, including GCR, in practice, in 2024, applicants from Syria and Afghanistan who had an admissibility interview and their applications were found admissible did not undergo an in-merits interview. Instead, their asylum applications were examined on the basis of their administrative file and, in general, were accepted. The Asylum Service notified applicants directly of their positive decisions with reference to their admissibility decisions. This did not apply to applicants from Somalia, who, after the admissibility interview, were notified of the decision on the admissibility interview, and in the case of a positive result were invited to the interview on the merits.

Since 1 January 2020, it is possible for the admissibility interview to be carried out by personnel of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) or, in particularly urgent circumstances, trained personnel of the Hellenic Police or the Armed Forces. The training needs to be in international human rights law, EU Law on Asylum and the procedures for conducting interviews.^[22] Such personnel are not allowed to wear military or law enforcement uniforms during interviews.^[23] However, EUAA caseworkers do not draft Opinions on cases where the JMD 42799/2021 designating Türkiye as a safe third country applies, as it falls outside their competence.^[24] Instead, EUAA caseworkers, following the interview, can send to Asylum Service caseworkers an annex with notes and comments on crucial issues to be taken into consideration.^[25] The EUAA has not publicly released specific statistics detailing the number of admissibility interviews conducted by its personnel in Greece for the year 2025. While the EUAA is involved in supporting the Greek Asylum Service, including providing training and operational support, detailed data on the number of interviews conducted by EUAA staff is not readily available.

By the end of the year, authorities have stopped rejecting applicants on the grounds of Türkiye being a safe third country, usually due to the applicant not having a link with the country anymore.

Additionaly, the examination of the applications of Syrian asylum seekers changed after the fall of the Assad regime on the 8^th of December 2024. The Governmental Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence, aligning with similar decisions made by other European governments, suspended the issuance of asylum decisions for Syrian nationals. As a result, applicants who had successfully completed an admissibility interview by December 8, but had not yet received a decision, were required to undergo an interview on the merits. Applicants who had not yet undergone an admissibility interview participated in a merged interview, covering both admissibility and merits.[26] In all cases, no decisions were issued. (see Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure). The same practice remained for interviews conducted during 2025. Extreme delays were noted in the issuance of a decision. The first rejections on the merits of international protection claims by Syrian applicants were also issued during 2025.

Appeal

According to the Asylum Code, the deadlines for appealing an inadmissibility decision, the automatic suspensive effect of appeals and the format of the Committee examining them depend on the inadmissibility ground invoked in the first instance decision under the regular procedure:^[27]

The Appeals Committee must decide on the appeal within 20 days, as opposed to 30 days in the regular procedure.^[28]

Appeals Committees do not apply Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) with regards to applications that have been rejected as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept vis-à-vis Türkiye, despite the fact that readmissions to Türkiye have been suspended since March 2020. It is only in a limited number of cases that the Appeals Committees have proceeded to an in-merits examination of the application, invoking inter alia Article 38(4) APD by consideration of the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye.^[29]

Indicative Case law

In May 2025, the 3rd Appeals Committee issued a decision with detailed reasoning and extensive reference to EU legislation and case law, which found that the Asylum Service had unlawfully rejected the asylum application of an Afghan national as inadmissible, based on the safe third country concept, by taking into account the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye.[30] Specifically, in its decision, the Appeals Committee inter alia held that:

“In light of the foregoing, the Commission notes that, as evidenced by the information provided, as of March 2020 and thereafter, Turkey, as a third country, which, pursuant to the aforementioned ministerial decisions, has been designated as generally safe, does not, in practice, accept the admission or readmission of the relevant applicants for international protection—third-country nationals.

 Consequently, in accordance with the above findings of the ECJ in its decision of October 4, 2024, in Case C-134/23, as well as those of the Council of State, as set forth in the second part of the President’s announcement of March 21, 2025, the competent Greek authorities may not reject applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32/EU and the corresponding provision of national law, on the grounds that Turkey is a safe third country.

Consequently, the contested decision, by which the applicant’s application was rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 89(1)(d) of Law 4939/2022, on the grounds that Turkey constitutes a safe third country for him, is unlawful, given that Turkey does not accept the readmission of the persons concerned—third-country nationals—and, for this reason, which is validly raised, must be annulled.

Consequently, the Commission finds that the applicant’s application for international protection is admissible and must be examined,furthermore, on its merits”

In April  2025, the 17^th  Appeals Committee accepted the appeal on the rejection of a subsequent application regarding admissibility due to the safe third country concept being applied to a man from Pakistan, focusing on the fact that he did not enjoy legal protection in Türkiye and Türkiye’s denial to allow any return since 2020.[31] As noted:

“the Commission takes into account that, despite the fact that the applicant resided in Turkey for 1.5 to 2 months before coming to Greece and was working there, albeit without valid documents. Furthermore, as is evident from the above information, since the beginning of 2020, Turkey has not been accepting resettlements. Moreover, as is known to the Commission, on January 4, 2024, a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-134/23 concerning the validity of our country’s ministerial decisions designating Turkey as a “safe third country” for certain categories of applicants for international protection. In this judgment, the Court held, in paragraph 48, that Article 38(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection[32], “it follows that, where a Member State has designated, by an act of general , a third country as generally safe, despite the fact that the latter has suspended the possibility for applicants for international protection to enter its territory, that Member State must ensure that each of the applicants concerned to have access to a procedure for the examination of the application for international protection which he has submitted,” and in recital 54, which states that “… where it is established that a third country which has been designated by a Member State as generally safe does not, in practice, accept the admission or readmission of the applicants for international protection concerned, that Member State may not reject their applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32. Furthermore, that Member State may not unjustifiably delay the examination of such applications and must, inter alia, ensure that such examination is conducted on an individual basis, in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) of that directive and in compliance with the time limits set out in Article 31 thereof.” In light of these facts, and in view of the requirement that the conditions of Article 91 of the Code, the Commission considers that, in the present case, the conditions laid down by

that article are not met for Turkey to be considered a safe country for the applicant. Consequently, the subsequent application for asylum must be deemed admissible and examined on its merits, based on the evidence in the administrative file and in accordance with what the applicant stated during his registration regarding the reason that prompted him to leave his country.”

In July 2025, 10^th Appeals Committee[33]accepted the appeal of a single man from Afghanistan focusing on the feasibility of the readmission as a legal requirement:

Furthermore, as has been ruled (Council of State 177/2023), a third country that has ratified the Geneva Convention with a geographical limitation may be designated as safe within the meaning of Article 86 of Law 4636/2019 (now Article 91 of Law 4939/2022) and Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, provided that it observes the principle of non-refoulement and provides adequate protection of certain fundamental rights, such as, among others, the right of access to healthcare and the labor market. Interpreted in light of the intended purpose of ensuring the examination of applications for international protection as quickly as possible, and in view of the provisions of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 38 of the Directive (and, correspondingly, Article 86 of Law 4636/2019, now Article 91 of Law 4939/2022) means that a third country cannot be designated as safe unless it is established that the admission or readmission of the applicant for international protection to that third country will be feasible because, otherwise, it would merely prolong the time required to examine the submitted application for international protection and the applicant’s uncertainty regarding their residence status in the country where the application was submitted, without ruling out the risk of their return to a country where he or she risks persecution and the possibility of disrupting international relations between states.

The view that the possibility of admitting or readmitting a foreign national seeking protection to a third country is a prerequisite for classifying that third country as a safe country has, moreover, been reflected in soft law instruments of the Council of Europe and has been supported by a segment of international law theory, while it has been adopted by courts in other Member States of the European Union (the Dutch

Council of State). Furthermore, determining whether the condition of the possibility of admission or readmission of the foreign national to the safe third country is met involves examining both the legal regime existing in that country (i.e., whether the third country has assumed a relevant legal obligation) as well as the actual compliance of the third country with the relevant obligations it has assumed. It follows from the foregoing that, where a Member State draws up a national list of generally safe third countries, making use of the discretion provided for in Article 38(2) of the Directive, it is not permissible, for the purposes of expediting the examination of the applications for international protection referred to above, to be designated as a safe third country under the regulations unless the aforementioned condition—the possibility of entry or readmission to that country- is met with respect to both of the aforementioned specific aspects.

In this case, however, the condition set forth above, arising from Article 38(4) of the Directive (and, correspondingly, Article 86(5) of Law 4636/2019) is satisfied, as regards its first (“legal”) part, since it follows from the relevant international agreements and the Joint Declaration of the European Union and Turkey dated March 18, 2016, it follows that the legislative body lawfully accepted that Turkey assumed the legal obligation to accept, under certain conditions, the readmission from Greece of foreign nationals seeking international protection. As for the second part, however, which concerns Turkey’s actual compliance with those legal obligations, the same condition is not met, since it does not appear that

applicants for international protection, whose applications have been rejected as inadmissible on the grounds of “safe third country,” are actually being returned to Turkey. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Regional Asylum Office of Thrace, in its contested decision No. 154091/12.03.2025 (Case No. …), the applicant’s application dated 14.11.2024 was rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey constitutes a safe third country for him. For this reason, the appeal under review must be upheld, the aforementioned contested decision must be annulled, the case must be remanded, and the substance of the applicant’s aforementioned application must be examined.

Legal assistance

Legal Assistance in the admissibility procedure does not differ from the one granted for the regular procedure (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance). Thus, asylum applicants do not have access to state-provided free legal assistance during the admissibility procedures at first instance but only at second instance.^[34] The lack of legal assistance has proven particularly problematic, especially for cases falling under the JMD designating Türkiye as a safe third country. While legal aid services are provided at second instance, meaning the submission of an appeal against the first instance negative decision on admissibility, the ten-day deadline for the submission of the appeal following the notice of an inadmissibility decision is not adequate for asylum applicants, nor for the registry lawyers to be properly prepared for the appeal procedure and prepare an effective representation before the Appeals Authority.

Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of protection in another Member State

According to Dublin III Regulation, a Member State may send a take back request (Articles 18(1b-d) and 20(5)) asking another Member State to take responsibility for an applicant who applied for international protection within the reporting country but had already applied in the first Member State or because the other Member State previously accepted responsibility through a take charge request.

Data on outgoing “take back” requests and relevant positive decisions per Member State have not been provided by the MoMA, even though GCR has requested it. Instead, following the latest such request sent by GCR in January 2025, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”. Yet a closer look at the public sources referred by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available.

Regarding the situation of BIPs returned to Greece from other EU Member States, see Content of International Protection – Housing.

[1] Article 88(2) Asylum Code. Different deadlines are provided, e.g, for subsequent applications; when the safe third country concept is examined under the fast-track border procedure, etc.

[2] Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD) 42799/2021, Gov. Gazette 2425/Β/7-6-2021, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/2z8588nb .

[3] Indicatively see: GCR, Greece deems Turkey ‘safe’, but refugees are not: The substantive examination of asylum applications is the only safe solution for refugees, 14 June 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3E3qgCe and Refugee Support Aegean, Joint Press Release, Eight Years of Failure of the EU – Turkey deal : the “safe third country” concept comes under scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 March 2024, available here.

[4] For instance, see MoMA, New request from Greece for the return of 1.908 illegal economic migrants to Türkiye, 28 July 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3rl5bhy; European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Türkiye 2020 Report, 6 October 2020, available here: https://bit.ly/3xgt4aK, 48.

[5] For a detailed overview, see previous AIDA reports on Greece, available here.

[6] GCR, Joint Press Release ‘The Council of State annuls the designation of Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ for asylum seekers’, 27 March 2025, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2tu6szka.

[7] GCR, Εκδικάστηκε ενώπιον του ΣτΕ η αίτηση ακύρωσης της Απόφασης με την οποία η Τουρκία χαρακτηρίστηκε ασφαλής τρίτη χώρα, 15 March 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/365HUJ9.

[8] Plenary of the Council of State, Decision no 177/2023, 3 February 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3Gs6GSc.

[9] As further noted: ‘The view that the possibility of entry or readmission of a foreign applicant for protection to a third country constitutes a condition for the designation of a third country as safe has, besides, been set out in soft law texts of the Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers Recommendation R(97)22 and Guidelines of 1 July 2009) and has been supported by part of the international law doctrine (in particular Stephen H. Legomsky, Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2003, p. 567 et seq.), while it has been adopted by courts of other European Union Member States (see Dutch Council of State, decision 201609584/1/V3 of 13 December 2017). Furthermore, the assessment of fulfilment of the possibility of entry or readmission of the foreigner to the safe third country encompasses an examination of both the legal framework in said country (i.e. potential undertaking of a related legal obligation on the part of the third country) and compliance of the third country with its undertaken legal obligations in practice. The above observations lead to the conclusion that, where a Member State establishes a national list of generally safe third countries by making use of the discretion afforded by Article 38(2) of the Directive, it may not, for reasons of rapid conclusion of the examination of applications for international protection as mentioned above, make a regulatory designation of a third country as safe where the fulfilment of the aforementioned condition – the possibility of entry or readmission to said country – is not assessed on both its aforementioned limbs.[…].’

[10] GCR & RSA, Hearing before the Court of Justice of the European Union on Thursday 14 March on the preliminary questions of the Greek Council of State regarding Turkey as a “safe third country“, 13 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/8jwbaccz. See also ECRE, Newsletter, “Greece: […] ― CJEU Hearing on Designation of Türkiye as a “Safe Third Country”, 15 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5n8b2etb

[11] CJEU, Case C‑134/23, Advocate’s General Opinion, 13 June 2024, available here.

[12] See the CJEU’s judgment in case C-134/23, available here.

[13] Greek Council of Refugees, News from the field – The serious dysfunction of the Asylum Service & the reception system continues, November 2024, available here

[14] FEK 5949/16-12-2021, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/5dauc7e8.

[15] JMD 734214/6-12-2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3TMbGY3.

[16] JMD 538595/12-12-2023 (FEK 7063/15-12-2023), available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/2nntzpw6.

[17] MoMA, Decisions on the national list of safe third countries, available in Greek here.

[18] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp Tables 8a and 8b.

[19]  The Press Project New appeal filed with the Council of State challenging the designation of Turkey as a “safe third country,” following the government’s refusal to comply https://tinyurl.com/yffxph94

[20] Case represented by GCR before the Kos Asylum Services and the Appeals Authorities.

[21] Information shared by different actors, including GCR, during Legal Aid Working Group meetings, 2023.

[22] Article 82(1) Asylum Code.

[23] Article 82(12) (c) Asylum Code.

[24] Information provided by the EUAA, 28 February 2023.

[25]  In response to an information request submitted by ECRE for the year 2023, the EUAA answered on 26 February 2024 that “[t]he number of concluding remarks issued by EUAA decreased to 776 in 2023, a significant drop compared to 2022 (5,071). This is due to the fact that, following the June 2021 Joint Ministerial Decision designating Turkey as a safe third country for applicants from five of the most common countries of origin in Greece, the drafting of concluding remarks by EUAA caseworkers is no longer required for a large share of cases, that is those examined on admissibility”.

[26] Indicative Press Releases : Naftemporiki, Το ΚΥΣΕA αποφασίζει για τους Σύρους πρόσφυγες – Στην ατζέντα το «πάγωμα» αιτημάτων ασύλου, 13 December 2024, Naftemporiki, available at: https://tinyurl.com/37zyhf7k.

[27] Article 97(d). It should be noted that the deadline for appealing against decisions issued under the provision of Article 95 Asylum Code (border procedure) is 10 days.

[28] Article 101 (d) L4636/2019, as amended by Article 25 (d) L4686/2020.

[29] Indicatively: 21st Appeals Committee, Decision 115795/2022, issued 28 February 2022, 10th Appeals Committee, Decision 224433/2022, issued 20 April 2022, 3rd Appeals Committee, Decision 345521/2022, issued 16 June 2022.

[30] 3^rd Appeals Committee, Decision 270494/2025, case legally represented by GCR, summary of the decision available [in Greek] in GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report, Issue 1/2025, available in Greek https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p 13.

[31] Decision IP/229108/2025 17^th Appeals Committee, summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p.13

[32] Decision ΙΡ/370696/2025 10^th Appeals Committee summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2025  https://tinyurl.com/3fkyetz5 p.9-10

[33] Decision ΙΡ/370696/2025 10^th Appeals Committee summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2025  https://tinyurl.com/3fkyetz5 p.9-10

[34] Article 76 of the Asylum Code.