Subsequent applications

Greece

Country Report: Subsequent applications Last updated: 30/11/20

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

The law sets out no time limit for lodging a subsequent application.[1]

A subsequent application can also be lodged by a member of a family who had previously lodged an application. In this case the preliminary examination concerns the eventual existence of evidence that justifies the submission of a separate application by the depending person.[2]

2,369 subsequent asylum applications were submitted to the Asylum Service in 2019:

 

Subsequent applicants: 2019

Country of origin

 

Pakistan

722

Albania

256

Egypt

182

Afghanistan

160

Bangladesh

148

Other

901

Total

2,369

 

Source: Asylum Service.

 

A total of 841 subsequent applications were considered admissible and referred to be examined on the merits, while 1,423 subsequent applications were dismissed as inadmissible in 2019.[3]

The definition of “final decision” was amended in 2018. According to the new definition, as maintained in the IPA, a “final decision” is a decision granting or refusing international protection (a) taken [by the Appeals Committees] following an administrative appeal, or (b) which is no longer amenable to an administrative appeal due to the expiry of the time limit to appeal.[4] An application for annulment can be lodged against the final decision before the Administrative Court.[5]

The registration of a subsequent application in practice is suspended for as long as the deadline for the submission of an application for the annulment of the second instance negative decision before the Administrative Court is still pending,[6] unless the applicant proceeds to waive his or her right to legal remedies. The applicant can only waive this right in person or through a proxy before the competent Administrative Court of Appeal. This procedure poses serious obstacles to applicants subject to the Fast-Track Border Procedure who intend to submit a subsequent application.

This is in particular the case for applicants whose application has been examined without having being processed by the RIS due to the shortcomings in the Identification procedure and without having their vulnerability been identified, or cases regarding vulnerabilities appeared or identified in a later stage. Cases where vulnerability has been identified by the RIS or medical actors operating on the islands, e.g. public hospitals, and in which relevant certificates were issued after the second instance examination or even after the issuance of the second instance decision have been encountered by GCR. Therefore, the identification of vulnerability is a “new, substantial element” as prescribed by law.

However, according to the practice followed, applicants whose application has been rejected within the framework of the fast-track border procedure are immediately arrested and detained upon receiving a second instance negative decision in order to be swiftly readmitted to Turkey. As they remain detained there was no way for them to present themselves before the competent Administrative Court, located in Piraeus, Attica region and in Athens, in order to waive the right to submit an onward appeal and respectively to lodge a subsequent application. It is also extremely difficult to locate a notary on the island willing to proceed to the detention facility and prepare a proxy form that will be sent to a lawyer on the mainland who will waive the right on behalf of the applicant. Even if this is the case, the fact that readmission procedures may be completed within a number of days from notification of the second instance decision means that the time required for this procedure is not usually available and the right to submit a subsequent application is hindered for applicants under the fast-track border procedure.

 

Preliminary examination procedure

 

When a subsequent application is lodged, the relevant authorities examine the application in conjunction with the information provided in previous applications.[7]

Subsequent applications are subject to a preliminary examination, during which the authorities examine whether new substantial elements have arisen or are submitted by the applicant. The preliminary examination of subsequent applications is conducted within 5 days to assess whether new substantial elements have arisen or been submitted by the applicant.[8] According to the IPA, the examination takes place within 2 days if the applicant’s right to remain on the territory has been withdrawn.[9]

During that preliminary stage, according to the law all information is provided in writing by the applicant,[10] however in practice subsequent applications have been registered with all information provided orally.

If the preliminary examination concludes on the existence of new elements “which affect the assessment of the application for international protection”, the subsequent application is considered admissible and examined on the merits. The applicant is issued a new “asylum seeker’s card” in that case. If no such elements are identified, the subsequent application is deemed inadmissible.[11]

Until a final decision is taken on the preliminary examination, all pending measures of deportation or removal if applicants who have lodged a subsequent asylum application are suspended.[12]

Exceptionally, under the IPA, “the right to remain on the territory is not guaranteed to applicants who (a) make a first subsequent application which is deemed inadmissible, solely to delay or frustrate removal, or (b) make a second subsequent application after a final decision dismissing or rejecting the first subsequent application”.[13]

Any new submission of an identical subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible.[14]

Until the completion of this preliminary procedure, applicants are not provided with proper documentation and have no access to the rights attached to asylum seeker status or protection. The asylum seeker’s card is provided after a positive decision on admissibility.

 


[1] 59 L 4375/2016  and Article 89 IPA

[2]  Article 59(5) L 4375/2016 and Article 89(5) IPA.

[3] Information provided by the Asylum Service, 17 February 2020.

[4] Article 34(e) L 4375/2016, as amended by Article 28(5) L 4540/2018. See also Article 63(a) IPA.

[5] Article 34(e) L 4375/2016, as amended by Article 28(5) L 4540/2018 and Article 108(1) IPA.

[6] Said deadline was up until the end of 2019 60 days – Since the entry into force of the IPA is 30 days. 

[7] Article 59(1) L 4375/2016 and Article 89(1) IPA.

[8] Article 59(2) L 4375/2016, as amended by Article 28(13) L 4540/2018 and Article 89(2) IPA.

[9] Ibid, citing Article 89(9) IPA.

[10] Article 59(2) L 4375/2016 and Article 89(2) IPA.

[11] Article 59(4) L 4375/2016 and Article 89(4) IPA.

[12]Article 59(3) L 4375/2016 and Article 89(9) IPA.

[13] Article 59(9) L 4375/2016, inserted by Article 28(13) L 4540/2018 and Article 89(9) IPA.

[14] Article 89(7) IPA.

 

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation