Safe third country

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

General rules

The “safe third country” concept is a ground for inadmissibility (see Admissibility Procedure).

According to Article 91 (1) of the Asylum Code, a country shall be considered a “safe third country” for a specific applicant when all the following criteria are cumulatively fulfilled:

• The applicant’s life and liberty are not threatened for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
• The country respects the principle of non-refoulement, in accordance with the Refugee Convention;
• The applicant is in no risk of suffering serious harm according to Article 15 of IPA;
• The country prohibits the removal of an applicant to a country where they risk to be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in international law;
• The possibility to apply for refugee status exists and, if the applicant is recognised as a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention; and
• The applicant has a connection with that country, under which it would be reasonable for the applicant to move to it^[1].

The transit of the applicant from a third country may be considered as the applicant ‘s connection with the third country, on the basis of which it would be reasonable to move to it. Yet this needs to be assessed in conjunction with specific circumstances, and in particular: (a) the time of stay there, (b) any contact or objective and subjective possibility of contact with the authorities, for access to work or granting a right of residence, (c) possible, prior to transit, residence such as long-term visits or studies, (d) existence of any, even distant, kinship, (e) existence of social or professional or cultural relations, (f) existence of property, (g) connection with a wider community; (h) knowledge of the language concerned; (i) geographical proximity of the country of origin.

Designation of Türkiye and Albania as safe third countries

The Asylum Code provides the possibility for the establishment of a list of safe third countries by way of Joint Ministerial Decision.^[2] On 7 June 2021, a Joint Ministerial Decision of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Migration and Asylum was issued, designating Türkiye as “safe third country” in a national list for asylum applicants originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia, without providing any legal reasoning.^[3] The aforementioned Joint Ministerial Decision was amended by a subsequent JMD under Article 86(3) IPA, previously in force, declaring Türkiye a safe third country for said nationalities, again, without providing any legal reasoning.^[4] The abovementioned JMD designated Albania as a safe third country for the first time for people entering Greece from the Albanian-Greek borders, and North Macedonia as a safe third country for people entering the Greek territory from the borders between North Macedonia and Greece. ^[5] Subsequently, on 12 December 2022, a new JMD^[6] was issued pursuant to which JMD 42799/03.06.2021^[7], as amended by the JMD 458568/15.12.2021, upon review of the existing information (domestic legislative status of the third country, bilateral or multilateral inter-governmental agreements or agreements of the third country with the European Union, as well as internal practice), ^[8] remains in force. The latest JMD establishing the list of safe third countries was published in December 2023 and includes the countries mentioned in the previous JMD.^[9]

It must be stressed that these JMDs provide no reasoning as to why and on the basis of which information Türkiye was designated as a safe third country for the five nationalities. Instead, they refer to “Opinions” of the Head of the Asylum Service, which have not been made public, in contravention of Articles 12(1)(d) and 38(2)(c) of the Asylum Procedures Directive and Articles 86(3) IPA, previously in force and 91(3) of the Asylum Code. According to Article 91(3) of the Asylum Code, the information (domestic legislative status of the third country, bilateral or multilateral inter-governmental agreements or agreements of the third country with the European Union, as well as internal practice)” taken into account for the adoption of a JMD designating a country as a “safe third country”, must be “up to date and come from credible sources of information, in particular from official domestic and foreign diplomatic sources, EASO, the legislation of the other Member States in relation to the concept of safe third countries, the Council of Europe, and UNHCR. The European Commission shall be informed of any decision designating a country as a safe third country.

The European Commission has expressly stated that:^[10]

‘Article 12(1)(d) of Directive 2013/32/EU provides that such information, when taken into account by the deciding authority, should also be accessible to the applicant and his/her legal advisers. To the extent Opinion 8815/14.05.2021 of the Director of the Asylum Service contains information referred to in Article 10(3)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU, and the deciding authority takes the opinion into account for the purpose of taking a decision on an application for international protection, it should be made accessible to the applicant and his/her legal advisers’.

Contrary to Article 91(3) of the Asylum Code, the Opinion was simply a compilation of sources of information about Türkiye and contains no legal reasoning as to why this information leads to the conclusion that Türkiye is a safe third country for asylum applicants from the five countries concerned. In fact, the sources mentioned in the “Opinion” seem to rather substantiate the opposite conclusion. Finally, it should be mentioned that the “Opinion” has still not been published by the authorities nor is it included as part of the applicants’ file in the inadmissibility decisions.^[11]

As a result, since the entry into force of the JMDs, the applications lodged by those nationals of these countries can be rejected as “inadmissible” without their applications being examined on their merits.

The criteria provided by the Asylum Code are to be assessed in each individual case, except where a third country has been declared as generally safe in the national list.^[12] Such provision seems to derogate from the duty to carry out an individualised assessment of the safety criteria where the applicant comes from a country included in the list of “safe third countries”, contrary to the Directive and to international law. Even where a country has been designated as generally safe, the authorities should conduct an individualised examination of the fulfilment of the safety criteria. Moreover, there should be a possibility to challenge both the general designation of a country as safe and the application of the concept in an individual case.^[13]

Application of the designation in practice

Prior to any analysis of the statistics, it must be noted that ‘[full and transparent publication of asylum statistics has been a core demand of MPs and civil society in Greece from the re-establishment of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum to present […] monthly reports of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum do not disaggregate first and second instance decisions by country of origin. However, detailed figures by country and type of decisions have been secured through parliamentary questions.^[14]

Up until the end of 2020, the safe third country concept was only applied in the context of the Fast-Track Border Procedure under Article 84 IPA, previously in force, to those who entered Greece after 20 March 2016 via the Greek Aegean islands and under a measure of geographical restriction. It should be noted that the concept was only applied to Syrian nationals.

Since June 2021, all applications for international protection submitted by nationals of Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh throughout the Greek territory are examined under the safe third country concept pursuant to JMD 42799/2021, as amended by JMD 485868/2021 and 734214/2022. Based on this new policy, asylum applications of people from the aforementioned five nationalities are not examined on the basis of their individual circumstances and the risks they face in their country of origin. Instead, they are presumed to be safe in Türkiye, and only if Türkiye is proven not to be safe, these applications are deemed ‘admissible’, and the competent decision authorities proceed to the examination of their applications on the merits. Three out of the five nationalities mentioned in the JMD 42799/03.06.2021 are amongst those with the highest recognition rate in Greece. In 2020, before the adoption of said JMD, 92% of Syrians, 66% of Afghans, and 94% of Somalis (median acceptance rate: 84%) received refugee or subsidiary protection status.^[15]

According to MoMA statistics, during 2024, a total of 3,310 inadmissibility decisions were issued pursuant to JMD 734214/06.12.2022. These included 2,143 first-instance inadmissibility decisions and 1,142 second-instance inadmissibility decisions. Of the latter, 1,132 inadmissibility decisions were issued under the border procedure based on the ‘safe third country’ concept, 11 inadmissibility decisions under the border procedure concerning Albania as a ‘safe third country,’ and 24 inadmissibility decisions under the border procedure concerning North Macedonia as a ‘safe third country.^[16] During 2025, statistics mention a striking decrease of relevant decisions: 464 first instance inadmissibility decisions were issued under the border procedure applying the safe third country concept, and  66  at the second instance border procedure applying the safe third country concept, 11 inadmissibility decisions under the border procedure concerning Albania as a safe third country, and 27 inadmissibility decisions under the border procedure concerning North Macedonia as a ‘safe third country,[17] leading to a total of 568 cases declared as inadmissible. Between the two years there is a difference of more than 2,500 cases with no evident explanation leading to reasonable reservations regarding their accuracy.

Additionally, mention should be made to the number of cases found admissible yet rejected after an in-merit examination of the claim as manifestly unfounded at the second instance due again to safe country of origin. According to the statistics during 2025 3,154 case were rejected on that notion (3,674 in 2024).[18]

Continued application of the safe third country concept despite the lack of prospects of removal to Türkiye and developments during 2025

In addition to the above, according to the official statistics of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum published in December 2024, ‘Returns under the EU-Türkiye Joint Statement have not been made since March 2020 due to Covid-19. It should be noted that the Greek authorities have asked the Turkish ones to resume returns in accordance with the EU-Türkiye Joint Statement’.^[19]

Furthermore, the suspension of returns/readmissions under the EU-Türkiye Statement is publicly acknowledged by both the European Commission and the relevant Ministers of the Greek government.^[20] The European Commission, in a 12 October 2022 report on Türkiye, explicitly states inter alia that ‘Türkiye maintained the suspension of returns from the Greek islands that it put in place in March 2020 […] The return of irregular migrants from the Greek islands under the EU-Türkiye Statement continued to be suspended, as it has been since March 2020’.^[21] In its 6^th Annual report, the Commission clearly points out that Türkiye was no longer using COVID-19 as a pretext for refusing returns. In particular, the Commission recognises that: ‘[a]lthough resettlements from Türkiye resumed as of July 2020, returns from Greece remain suspended. Responding to repeated requests from the Greek authorities and the European Commission regarding the resumption of return operations, Türkiye has stated that no return operation would take place unless the alleged pushbacks along the Turkish-Greek border stop and Greece revokes its decision to consider Türkiye a Safe Third Country’.^[22] The Minister of Citizen Protection has explicitly stated that Türkiye refuses to implement the Statement and invokes the COVID-19 pandemic as grounds for suspending readmissions. The Minister of Migration and Asylum noted in early 2022 that “Türkiye has unilaterally suspended admission of those who do not qualify international protection since March 2020, under the pretext of COVID”. In a previous statement, the Minister stressed that Türkiye “has refused to implement its commitments, and continues to refuse to engage in any way on the issue”.^[23] Besides, the Readmission Unit of the Migration Management Directorate of the Hellenic Police, in response to relevant questions submitted by GCR, systematically confirms the absence of any prospect of removal of refugees from the Eastern Aegean islands to Türkiye, while the Administrative Courts competent for the judicial review of detention affirm the manifest lack of prospects of readmissions to Türkiye, highlighting that the procedure for the readmission of third-country nationals to Türkiye has already been suspended since 16 March 2020 and there is no evidence that this suspension will be lifted immediately; that the police authority has not proceeded to any action to execute the readmission decision; as well as that precondition for the readmission of third-country nationals to Türkiye is the submission of a relevant return application by the competent Greek authority. However, no requests have been submitted for the applicants’ return to Türkiye nor does it appear that there is any intention to do so, due to the indefinite suspension of the relevant procedures on the part of the Turkish authorities.^[24]

It is also worth noting that due to this suspension, the Greek authorities do not send readmission requests to the Turkish authorities regarding persons whose applications have been examined under the safe third country concept.^[25]

Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, which provides that “where the third country does not permit the applicant to enter its territory, Member States shall ensure that access to a procedure is given in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees described in Chapter II”, was transposed into Greek law through Article 91(5) of the Asylum Code,^[26] pursuant to which “where the safe third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, their application shall be examined on the merits by the competent Examination Authorities”.

Despite the suspension of returns to Türkiye since March 2020,^[27] and the aforementioned provision of Article 91(5) of the Asylum Code, the Greek asylum authorities have since systematically applied the safe third country concept vis-à-vis applicants from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh, leading to a large number of applicants having their claims dismissed as inadmissible and being ordered to return to Türkiye, despite the lack of any prospect of return/readmission. As already noted above, as many as 3,310 asylum applications (at first and second instance) were dismissed as inadmissible based on the safe third country concept in 2024, the vast majority of which with regards to Türkiye.^[28] Subsequent applications lodged following a final rejection of an application for international protection as inadmissible are channelled again into admissibility procedures and dismissed based on the safe third country concept or due to a lack of new elements.

To the knowledge of GCR, in only a few decisions did the Appeals Committees deem applications for international protection admissible on the grounds that it was certain that Türkiye would not allow the appellants to enter its territory, in light the country’s general refusal to readmit rejected applicants who had irregularly entered Greece through its territory.^[29]

This practice exposes applicants for international protection to a legal limbo whereby they are not granted access to an examination of their applications on the merits, contrary to the purpose of the Geneva Convention and of the Asylum Procedures Directive. It also leads to their exclusion from reception conditions, without access to dignified living standards or the possibility to cater to their basic needs, including food and healthcare.

The European Parliament and civil society have raised concerns over Greece’s non-compliance with Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive and its application of the safe third country concept.

In response to parliamentary questions raised by Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission stated that, under Article 38(4), Member States must grant access to substantive asylum procedures if a third country refuses entry to an applicant, precluding inadmissibility rejections based solely on the safe third country concept. It emphasised that Greece must consider the prevailing circumstances during the (re-)examination of applications, particularly in light of Türkiye’s suspension of returns since 2020 under the EU-Türkiye Statement.^[30] The Commission further highlighted that legal or factual circumstances, including the suspension of bilateral readmission agreements or a failure by the third country to respond to readmission requests, necessitate adherence to Article 38(4). These obligations are particularly relevant in light of Türkiye’s continued non-admission of applicants since 2020, requiring Member States to safeguard procedural access to the examination of such claims. ^[31]

Civil society organisations have urged Greece to repeal its national list of safe third countries, disclose opinions on these designations, and cease inadmissibility decisions based on the concept. The Commission has previously called on Greece to ensure compliance with Article 38(4) to avoid legal limbo for applicants.^[32]

The Greek Ombudsperson has criticised the cyclical inadmissibility reviews, which fail to examine applications on their merits, undermining refugee protection standards. ^[33] While internal SOPs of the Asylum Service introduced in 2021 allowed merit-based examination for applicants in Greece for over a year, inconsistent application of these rules has left many, particularly Syrians, Afghans, and Somalis, in ongoing procedural uncertainty.

On 7 October 2021, GCR and Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) filed a judicial review before the Greek Council of State for the annulment of the JMD 42799/03.06.2021 designating Türkiye as a safe third country for nationals of Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.^[34] On 4 March 2022, requests for the continuation of the hearing were filed before the Council of State for the annulment of the subsequent JMD, 458568/15.12.2021 of the Minister of Migration and Asylum and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. The application for annulment was examined before the Plenary of the Council of State on 11 March 2022.

On 3 February 2023, the Plenary of the Council of State (CoS) issued its decision No. 177/2023,^[35] which postpones the final judgment and referred the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, given there were reasonable doubts as to the meaning of Article 38 of the Directive:

1. Must Article 38 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation, designating a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection, which has undertaken the legal obligation to readmit those categories of applicants to its territory, but it follows that for a long time (in case more than twenty months) this country has refused readmissions and that the possibility to change the country’s attitude in the near future does not appear to have been explored? Or,
2. Must this Article be interpreted as meaning that readmission to the third country is not a cumulative condition for the adoption of the national act designating a third country as safe for these categories of applicants, but it is a cumulative condition for the adoption of an individual act rejecting a specific application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground of ‘safe third country’? Or,
3. Must Article 38 be interpreted as meaning that the possibility of readmission to the ‘safe third country’ must be established only at the time of enforcement of the decision, where that decision to reject the application for international protection is based on the ‘safe third country’ ground?^[36]

On Friday 4 October 2024 the CJEU (C-134/2023) in line with the Advocate’s General Opinion, ruled that:

• Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU does not preclude legislation of a Member State 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 concept of ‘safe third country’ in cases where they have established that the applicant for asylum will not be allowed to enter the territory of a 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 of the Asylum Service up to now, as well as in the majority of decisions of the Independent Appeals Committees. It should be noted that those 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 application of the safe third country concept.

It should be recalled that the majority of the Plenary of the CoS, in the above-mentioned judgment, has 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.

In addition to the serious legal controversy over the interpretation of Article 38 given by the CJEU and its opposition to the adoption of the above-mentioned regulation – since it is contrary to fundamental principles of international and European Union law governing the interpretation of legal provisions- the CJEU’s judgment is of major importance because it overturns an arbitrary and abusive practice of the Greek authorities which has been in force for many years –that of wholesale rejecting asylum applications as inadmissible under the safe third country principle– and puts 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 Türkiye and dictating their individual examination in accordance with the Directive.

On 27 February 2025 by decision of the Plenary of the Council of State (CoS), the Joint Ministerial Decision designating Turkey as a safe third country for asylum seekers originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh has been annulled.

The Council of State, specifically, ruled that:

‘from the case file accompanying the Joint Ministerial Decision 538595/12.12.2023 issued by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Migration and Asylum, titled ‘Designation of third countries as safe and compilation of a national list pursuant to Article 91 of Law 4939/2022 […]’ (Government Gazette B’ 7063), and particularly from the recommendation of the Director of the Asylum Service, it does not emerge that the criteria set out in Article 91 of Law 4939/2022 (Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU) were duly assessed for the designation of Türkiye as a safe third country for the aforementioned categories of foreign nationals. This is because the recommendation and its attached Annex merely summarize the texts of the international sources considered, 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.’

Accordingly, the 18th Appeals Committee, in its IP/783018/2024 Decision, upheld an appeal against the rejection of a subsequent application, interpreting the applicable legislation in alignment with CJEU Decision C-134/2023.

Notwithstanding the judgments of the CJEU and the Council of State, GCR has received reports and is aware of asylum applications that have been rejected as inadmissible under the safe third country concept.^[37]

On 9 April 2025, the Greek government issued a new Joint Ministerial Decision re-designating Türkiye as a “safe third country” for asylum seekers originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh.[38] The decision is based on a revised proposal that selectively cites favorable sources while excluding credible reports that contradict this classification. It disregards key evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, UN bodies, and EU institutions, which highlight Turkey’s mass deportations, persistent human rights violations, and lack of effective asylum access. Even cited sources are selectively interpreted. Moreover, the proposal lacks reasoning for why Turkey is deemed safe specifically for nationals of these countries, raising serious doubts about the legality and objectivity of the designation under asylum law.

On 10 June 2025, the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) and Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) filed a judicial review before the Greek Council of State for the annulment of the aforementioned JMD and is pending.

Safety criteria

Applications lodged by Syrian, Afghan, Somali, Bangladeshi and Pakistani nationals

In 2022, the Asylum Service issued 8,611 first instance decisions on applications lodged by Syrian (initially subject to the fast-track border procedure), Afghan, Somali, Bangladeshi and Pakistani applicants, including third country nationals of Palestinian Origin with previous habitual residence in Syria. The applications submitted by the aforementioned applicants were examined under the safe third country concept.^[39] According to the official figures provided by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum to the Hellenic Parliament, the Asylum Service dismissed 3,409 claims as inadmissible based on the “safe third country” concept (Afghanistan: 1,095, Bangladesh: 231, Pakistan: 249, Somalia: 577, Syria: 1,257).^[40]

A relevant breakdown for 2024 has 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 https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [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 […]”.^[41] Yet a closer look at the public sources referenced by the MoMA highlights only a limited part of this data is available.

Namely, as per the MoMA’ monthly updates,^[42] throughout 2024 a total of 2.143 first instance inadmissibility decisions seem to have been issued under the safe third country concept, in the context of border procedures. For the purpose of clarity and certainty beyond doubt, this data needs to be checked, given that in the two different language versions (English and Greek) of the same publication, the specific number is quoted in one case (English) as related to the number of first instance inadmissibility decisions under the safe third country concept, and in the other (Greek), as related to first instance inadmissibility decisions under the first country of asylum concept. Nevertheless, given that, as mentioned in First Country of Asylum, the specific concept (i.e., first country) is not applied as a stand-alone inadmissibility ground in practice, it could reasonably be presumed that in the latter version reference to the first country of asylum is erroneous.

As already mentioned, statistics regarding 2025, apart from not including the relevant break down, leave way for much interpretation since the difference between the two years (2024 and 2025) requires further clarification. Reasonable reservations regarding their accuracy are maintained.

Since mid-2016, namely from the very first decisions applying the safe third country concept in the cases of Syrian nationals, up until October 2024,^[43] first instance decisions dismissing the applications of Syrian nationals as inadmissible based on the designation of Türkiye as a safe third country in the Fast-Track Border Procedure, were based on a pre-defined template provided to Regional Asylum Offices or Asylum Units on the islands, and were identical –except for the applicants’ personal details and a few lines mentioning their statements– and repetitive.^[44]

Specifically, the Asylum Service reaches the conclusion that Türkiye is a safe third country for Syrian nationals, relying on:

• the provisions of Turkish legal regime in force, e., the Turkish Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP), published on 4 April 2013,^[45] the Turkish Temporary Protection Regulation (TPR), published on 2014^[46] and the Regulation on Work Permit for Applicants for and Beneficiaries of International Protection, published on 26 April 2016,^[47] without taking into consideration its critical amendments, based on emergency measures;^[48]
• the letters, dated 2016, exchanged between the European Commission and Turkish authorities,^[49]
• the letters, dated 2016, exchanged between the European Commission and the Greek authorities,^[50]
• the 2016 letters of UNHCR to the Greek Asylum Service, regarding the implementation of Turkish law about temporary protection for Syrians returning from Greece to Türkiye and
• sources, indicated only by title and link, without proceeding to any concrete reference and legal analysis of the parts they base their conclusions.

Second instance decisions under the JMD 538595/2023^[51]

Throughout 2024, 1,167 “inadmissible/safe country of origin” decisions were issued by the Appeals Committee under the JMD 538595/2023.^[52] Of these, 10 decisions concerned Albania and 25 North Macedonia. The official statistical data for 2024 do not break down the cases according to nationality (Syrian, Afghan, Somali, Pakistani or Bangladeshi), nor has such data been provided following GCR’s yearly requests. According to the relevant statistics for 2025, only 66  “inadmissible/safe country of origin” decisions were issued by the Appeals Committee, 11 inadmissibility decisions under the border procedure concerning Albania as a ‘safe third country’, and 27 inadmissibility decisions under the border procedure concerning North Macedonia as a ‘safe third country.[53] No additional data are available.

Decisions of the Appeals Committees rejecting cases as inadmissible follow the line of reasoning of the Asylum Service to a great extent. Appeals Committees have continued to refrain from taking into consideration up-to-date and reliable sources of information concerning risks of inhuman or degrading treatment and refoulement facing individuals in Türkiye. Appeals Committees have also held that the designation of a third country as safe may be maintained, even in cases where the applicant invoked reports by international organisations reaching the opposite conclusion.^[54] Greek authorities come to the conclusion that applicants do not face a risk of refoulement in Türkiye on the ground that they had not already faced such treatment in the country prior to their arrival in Greece.^[55] Only in a few exceptions have the Independent Appeals Committees (IACs) cited Türkiye’s practice of coercion of refugees into signing “voluntary return” forms.^[56] Furthermore, none of the Asylum Service and IAC decisions seen in 2024 or early 2025  refer to authoritative evidence on the current state and deficiencies of the Turkish asylum system, including a “20% rule” on registration of international and temporary protection claims in all provinces with a significant population of non-nationals, and removal of tens of thousands to countries such as Afghanistan and Syria. Almost none refer to the country’s “20% rule” on access to asylum procedures.^[57]

To GCR’s knowledge there have been certain appeals of Syrians which have been considered as admissible at second instance.^[58]

Connection criteria

Article 91(1)(f) Asylum Code requires there to be a connection between the applicant and the “safe third country”, which would make return thereto reasonable. Whereas no further guidance was laid down in previous legislation^[59] as to the connections considered “reasonable” between an applicant and a third country,^[60] the IPA, as amended by the Asylum Code, has introduced further detail in the determination of such a connection. Transit through a third country may be considered as such a connection in conjunction with specific circumstances such as:^[61]

• Length of stay;
• Possible contact or objective and subjective possibility of contact with the authorities for the purpose of access to the labour market or granting a right to residence;
• Stay prior to transit, g., long-stay visits or studies;
• Presence of relatives, including distant relatives;
• Existence of social, professional or cultural ties;
• Existence of property;
• Connection to a broader community;
• Knowledge of the language concerned;
• Geographical proximity to the country of origin.

The article attempts to incorporate into Greek law the decision of the Plenary Session of the Council of State No 2347-2348/2017^[62], which accepted that Türkiye may be designated as a safe third country for Syrian citizens. However, in view of the strong minority of 12 members, out of a total of 25, advocating at the time for the referral of a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, this judgment cannot be regarded as a reliable case-law, be it at the national, European or international level, which would justify transposing it into Greek law. It should be noted that among the issues raised in the Plenary Session, the issue of the applicant’s safe connection with the third country was of particular concern as well as whether the applicant’s simple transit through that country was sufficient in this respect, in combination with certain circumstances, such as the duration of their stay there and the proximity to their country of origin.

The compatibility of Article 91(1)(f) Asylum Code with the EU acquis should be further assessed, in particular taking into consideration the CJEU Decision in case C‑564/18 of 19 March 2020, in which the Court ruled that “the transit of the applicant from a third country cannot constitute as such a valid ground in order to be considered that the applicant could reasonably return in this country”.

Article 91(1)(f) of the Asylum Code includes particularly broad, generic and often ambiguous factors that are arguably liable to lead to an arbitrary application of the safe third country concept to an individual applicant. This is particularly the case in relation to “cultural ties”, “broader community” or “geographical proximity to the country of origin” which could virtually apply indiscriminately to all refugees originating from a particular country. Any factors pointing to a connection with a country should be read with thorough consideration of the individual circumstances of the applicant. Greek courts have clarified, for instance, that such an assessment cannot be limited to mere reference to the number of refugees present in the country or the duration of the person’s stay prior to arrival in Greece. Yet, asylum authorities at first and second instance frequently use a standard text concluding on the existence of a connection between an applicant and Türkiye, without having conducted any individualised assessment of their personal circumstances.^[63]

Greek Asylum Service practice with regards to Türkiye

It is worth noting that, since October 2021, applications for international protection of asylum applicants originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia are deemed admissible if a period of more than one year has elapsed since the applicants’ transit from the third country and the applicants have not maintained relations (economic, social, etc.) with that country during that period. Hence, it is considered that the precondition of the link as per Article 91(1)(f) of the Asylum Code is no longer fulfilled and as such it would be not reasonable for the applicants to return to that country. The aforementioned admissibility decisions are based on internal Guidelines of the Asylum Service issued in October 2021, which to date have nevertheless not been made public.

As regards subsequent applications lodged upon rejection of a first application on safe third country grounds, the Ministry of Migration and Asylum issued a Circular on 6 July 2021, as per which:  ‘Specifically, for those applicants entering from Türkiye, the invocation of new and substantial elements must relate exclusively as foreseen in the law and the EU-Türkiye Joint Statement, to the finding on the initial application as to whether Türkiye –as the country of transit of the applicant– is safe or not for them in accordance with the national and European legislation. In the absence of any new and substantial elements as provided above, the subsequent application shall be rejected by the competent examination authorities as inadmissible, in accordance with [Article 94(4) of the Asylum Code].”  According to the above Circular, the fact that readmissions to Türkiye have been suspended since March 2020 is not considered as a new and substantial element.’^[64]

In such cases, applicants are expected to provide new and substantial elements as to why Türkiye cannot be considered a safe third country for them. In many of them, the GAS found the application admissible based on the new elements provided, taking into account that in the lapse of the one-year period between the decision of inadmissibility and the submission of the subsequent application, the applicant was staying in Greece in a way that a connection to Türkiye could no longer be established.^[65]

In practice, as it appears from first instance inadmissibility decisions issued to Syrian nationals, to the knowledge of GCR, the Asylum Service considers that the fact that an applicant would be subject to a temporary protection status upon return is sufficient in itself to establish a connection between the applicant and Türkiye, even in cases of very short stays and in the absence of other links.^[66]

The Appeals Committees considers that the connection criteria can be established by taking into consideration inter alia the “large number of persons of the same ethnicity” living in Türkiye; the “free will and choice” of the applicants to leave Türkiye and “not organise their lives in Türkiye”; “ethnic and/or cultural bonds” without further specification; the proximity of Türkiye to Syria; and the presence of relatives or friends in Türkiye without an effective examination of their status and situation there. Additionally, in line with the 2017 rulings of the Council of State,^[67] transit from a third country, in conjunction with inter alia the length of stay in that country or the proximity of that country to the country of origin, is also considered in second instance decisions as sufficient for the fulfilment of the connection criteria. It should be recalled that in the case presented before the Council of State where the Court found that the connection criteria were fulfilled, that applicants had stayed in Türkiye for periods of one and a half month and one month respectively.

Greek courts have clarified that such an assessment cannot be limited to mere reference to the number of refugees present in the country or the duration of the person’s stay prior to arrival in Greece.^[68] Yet asylum authorities at both first and second instance frequently use a standard text concluding on the existence of a connection between an applicant and Türkiye, without having conducted any individualised assessment of their personal circumstances. Other decisions adopt widely diverging and at times too broad interpretations of factors that may establish a sufficient connection.^[69]

[1] In case C-564/18 (LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal) of 19 March 2020, the CJEU examined the compatibility of said provision with Article 38(2) of the Recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU and ruled that ‘the transit of the applicant from a third country cannot constitute as such a valid ground in order to be considered that the applicant could reasonably return in this country’, available at: https://bit.ly/3w4pWUe. Moreover, contrary to Article 38(2) of the Directive, national law does not foresee the methodology to be followed by the authorities in order to assess whether a country qualifies as a ‘safe third country’ for an individual applicant.

[2] Article 91(3) of the Asylum Code.

[3] JMD 42799/03.06.2021, Gov. Gazette 2425/Β/7-6-2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/4aGni5U.

[4] JMD 458568/15.12.2021, Gov. Gazette 5949/B/16.12.2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/4aGnnGK.

[5]  Ibid.

[6] JMD 734214/06.12.2022 (Gov. Gazette 6250/B/12-12-2022), available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/427H9GU.

[7] JMD 42799/03.06.2021 (Gov. Gazette 2425/Β/7-6-2021, as above.

[8] JMD 458568/15.12.2021, Gov. Gazette 5949/B/16.12.2021, as above.

[9] JMD 538595/12.12.2023 (Gov. Gazette 7063/B/15-12-2023) available at: https://bit.ly/4b8PcHK.

[10] European Commission, Reply to parliamentary question E-3532/2021, 4 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3NimFGj.

[11] Equal Rights Beyond Borders, HIAS Greece and RSA, The state of the Border Procedure on the Greek islands, September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3VbNjU5, pp. 19-20.

[12] Article 91(2) of the Asylum Code.

[13] RSA, RSA Comments on the International Protection Bill, October 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3eqsDC0, pp. 4-5.

[14] RSA, The Greek asylum procedure in figures in 2022, Analysis of main trends in refugee protection, available at: https://bit.ly/4482hhP, p. 2.

[15] GCR, EU-Türkiye Statement: Six years of undermining refugee protection, 8 NGOs warn that policies implemented in Greece keep displaced people from accessing asylum procedures, despite clear need of protection, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3tMP7GU, 1.

[16] MoMA, Statistics, available at: https://bit.ly/4arfSEx, 7-8.

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

[18] Ibid

[19] MoMA, Report A, December 2024, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/47jnw39s, 18.

[20] European Commission, Türkiye Report 2021, SWD(2021) 290, 19 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3DiPMTP, p. 48; Reply to parliamentary question, Answer given by Ms Johansson
on behalf of the European Commission, Question reference: P-000604/2021, 1 June 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3IIx2hW; European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Türkiye 2020 Report, 6 October 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3xgt4aK, 48.

[21] European Commission, Türkiye 2022 Report, SWD(2022) 333 final, 12 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3HmE7X0, pp. 5, 8. European Commission, Sixth Annual Report on the Facility for Refugees in Türkiye, COM(2022) 243, 24 May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/40N9H7r, 2-3.

[22] European Commission, Sixth Annual Report on the Facility for Refugees in Türkiye, COM(2022) 243, 24 May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3LakP8y, 3.

[23] RSA, Greece arbitrarily deems Türkiye a ‘safe third country’ in flagrant violation of rights, February 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3iIFsen, p. 3; MoMA, Request by Greece towards the EU for the immediate return 1,450 third country nationals under the Joint EU-Türkiye Statement, 14 January 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3izPzmA.

[24] Administrative Court of Kavala, AR779/2022, 14 July 2022, para 4, Administrative Court of Athens ΑΡ831/2022, 26 May 2022, para 4, Administrative Court of Korinthos, Π2424/2022, 24 June 2022, para3, Administrative Court of Rhodes, ΑΡ46/2022, 24 March 2022, para 4, ΑΡ72/2022, 25 May 2022, para 4, ΑΡ78/2022, 21 June 2022, para 3, ΑΡ79/2022, 21 June 2022, para 3, ΑΡ515/2021, 16 December 2021, para 3; ΑΡ514/2021, 16 December 2021, para 3; ΑΡ450/2021, 3 November 2021, para 4; ΑΡ136/2021, 24 March 2021, para 4; ΑΡ122/2021, 4 March 2021.

[25] See e.g. Hellenic Police, 4666/3-123706, 14 February 2022; 4666/3-123672, 2 February 2022; 4666/3-123670, 31 January 2022; 4666/3-123598, 20 January 2022; 4666/3-123580, 17 January 2022; 4666/3-123567, 15 January 2022; 4666/3-123539, 11 January 2022; 4666/3-229920, 27 December 2021; 4666/3-229748, 29 November 2021.

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

[27] European Commission, Türkiye 2022 Report, SWD(2022) 333 final, 12 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/41KEpPW, p. 5, 8, 21, RSA, Greece arbitrarily deems Türkiye a ‘safe third country’ in flagrant violation of rights, February 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/46RDw9I, pp. 2-3, EASO, Asylum Report 2021, 29 June 2021, p. 242, available at: https://bit.ly/3NjoEKi; Hellenic Parliament, Defence & Foreign Affairs Committee, 17 December 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3RzGqLS.

[28] MoMA, Statistics, available at: https://bit.ly/4arfSEx, 7-8.

[29]  10th Appeals Committee, No 83008/2023, 9 February 2023; 20^th Appeals Committee, No 91410/2023, 14 February 2023; 10^th Appeals Committee, No 151657/2023, 14 March 2023; 10^th Appeals Committee, 312252/2023, 16 June 2023; 20^th Appeals Committee, No ΙΡ/21911/2023, 18 July 2023; 20^th Appeals Committee No ΙΡ/36908/2023, 28 July 2023.

[30] CHAP (2021)02261, 7 June 2021; CHAP(2021)02274, 8 June 2021, CHAP(2021)02994, 31 July 2021. See also RSA, Asylum seekers in Greece lodge complaint on infringement of Asylum Directives, 16 June 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3tkl5ZV; European Commission, Reply to parliamentary question P-000604/2021(ASW), 1 June 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/44otFZl; European Commission, Reply to parliamentary question E-004131/2021(ASW), 21 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/45w7rFb; European Commission, Reply to parliamentary question E-005103/2021(ASW), 25 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Q3NugU; European Commission, Reply to parliamentary question E-001347/2022(ASW), 22 June 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/46OaKqG.

[31] European Commission, Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs, Ref.Ares(2021)7836311, 17 December 2021, no longer available online.

[32] Letter to the Director of the Asylum Service by co-signing civil society organisations, European Commission dispels Greece’s designation of Türkiye as a ‘safe third country’ for refugees – Repeal the national list of safe third countries, Ref. no: β/72/27.10.2022, 27 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/40Lhq5J.

[33] RSA, Greece arbitrarily deems Türkiye a ‘safe third country’ in flagrant violation of rights, February 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3iIFsen, p. 5; Ombudsperson, Letters 301551/41050/2021 and 301755/41017/2021, 22 July 2021.

[34] GCR, Decision declaring Türkiye a ‘safe third country’ brought before Greek Council of State, 7 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3iLkeMJ.

[35] Plenary of the Council of State, 177/2023, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/426WSpv. See also RSA, Key points of the Greek Council of State ruling on the ‘safe third country’ concept’, 17 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3FB91KC.

[36] European Legal Network on Asylum (ELENA), Greece: Preliminary reference regarding Türkiye as a safe third country, 3 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3LhmQzH.

[37] IP/179788/26.03.2025 19^th Appeals Committee, Αρ.πρωτ.:IP/179788

[38] See official text of the JMD in Greek here.

[39] MoMA, Parliamentary Control, Protocol No 97157, 17 February 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3qGGT16, p. 8.

[40] MoMA, Reply of the Ministry to the Greek Parliament, 156079/2023, 16 March 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JIy0y6, p. 12.

[41] MoMA, Analysis and Studies Office, Reply to GCR’s request for information for the preparation of the present 2024 Update of AIDA Country Report: Greece, received on10 January 2025, in answer to protocol number 565, 573 and 574/2024 GCR requests, lodged on December 5, 2024.

[42] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview 2024- International Protection | Appendix A, available in English here, table 8a ; and in Greek here, table 8a.

[43] i.e., date at which the CJEU delivered its judgement in Case C‑134/23, which is available here, see also joint press release by GCR and RSA, who represented the case before the Court, available here and here.

[44] ECRE, The role of EASO operations in national asylum systems, 29 November 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2RVALRt, pp. 33 and 35; ECRE et al., The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece, December 2016, p. 38, available at: https://bit.ly/4a8glLp. On Lesvos, see GCR, GCR Mission to Lesvos – November 2016, available at: https://bit.ly/3Gv1rRT, p. 20; On Samos, see GCR, GCR Mission to Samos – June 2016, available at: https://bit.ly/3GvJJO6, p. 20 On Leros and Kos, see GCR, GCR Mission to Leros and Kos – May to November 2016, p. 32, available at: https://bit.ly/3t7mWoI.

[45] Türkiye: Law No. 6458 of 2013 on Foreigners and International Protection, 4 April 2013, as amended by the Emergency Decree No 676, 29 October 2016, available at: https://bit.ly/3LhAJhk.

[46] National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities, Türkiye: Temporary Protection Regulation, 22 October 2014, available at: https://bit.ly/2YM9F3T.

[47] National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities, Türkiye: Regulation on Work Permit of International Protection Applicants and International Protection Status Holders, 26 April 2016, available at: https://bit.ly/3oTLij3.

[48] Venice Commission, Opinion No. 865 / 2016, Opinion on the Emergency Decree Laws Nos. 667-676 adopted following the failed coup of 15 July 2016, adopted at its 109th plenary session, 9-10 December 2016, Doc. CDL-AD(2016)037, available at: https://bit.ly/3uQDa6h; International Commission of Jurists, Türkiye: Justice suspended, Access to justice and the State of Emergency in Türkiye, 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/3DlcsTi, p. 2.

[49] Letters between the European Commission and the Turkish and Greek authorities between April and July 2016, available at: https://bit.ly/4bbi6Y2.

[50 Ibid.

[51] See here.

[52] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview 2024- International Protection | Appendix A, available in English here, table 8b

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

[54] 2nd IAC, 171515/2023, 23 March 2023, p. 7; 8th IAC, 583703/2022, 5 October 2022, p. 12; 511455/2022, 5 September 2022, p. 19; 237130/2022, 29 April 2022, p. 16; 161054/2022, 21 March 2022, p. 13; 142176/2022, 11 March 2022, para 9; 458313/2021, 15 December 2021, para 9; 11th IAC, 71895/2022, 8 February 2022, para 13; 67923/2022, 7 February 2022, para 9; 384227/2021, 15 November 2021, para 9; 2075/2021, 26 February 2021, para 11; 2727/2020, 9 April 2020, para 10; 13th IAC, IP/113682/2023, 13 September 2023, para 11; 22148/2023, 13 January 2023, para 8; 734754/2022, 7 December 2022, para 9; 14th IAC, IP/335367/2023, 6 December 2023, p. 18; 250567/2023, 3 May 2023, p. 24; 211179/2023, 11 April 2023, p. 24; 16th IAC, 85916/2023, 10 February 2023, para IV.4; 394674/2022, 7 July 2022, p. 7; 21st IAC, 710801/2022, 28 November 2022, pp. 9-10; 690292/2022, 18 November 2022, p. 8; 467020/2021, 20 December 2021, p. 10, as cited in ProAsyl and RSA, The concept of “Safe third country”. Legal standards and Implementation in the Greek Asylum System, February 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/44fR5jV, p. 10, note 29.

[55] For example, 3rd IAC, 47496/2022, 28 January 2022, para 15; 4th IAC, 204504/2023, 7 April 2023, pp. 18-19; 79499/2023, 8 February 2023, para III.2; 6th IAC, IP312088/2023, 28 November 2023, para IV.5; IP/291367/2023, 21 November 2023, para IV.5; 11th IAC, IP/578/2023, 28 June 2023, pp. 24-25; 12th IAC, 168365/2023, 7 April 2023, p. 15; 14th IAC, IP/335367/2023, 6 December 2023, p. 21; 250567/2023, 3 May 2023, p. 26; 211179/2023, 11 April 2023, pp. 25-26.

[56] 10th IAC, 22083/2020, 28 April 2021, para 2; 12540/2020, para 4; 17th IAC, 292768/2023, 8 June 2023, para 3; 21st IAC, 398486/2021, 19 November 2021, p. 20, as cited in ProAsyl and RSA, “The concept of “Safe third country”. Legal standards and Implementation in the Greek Asylum System, February 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/44fR5jV, p. 12, note 43.

[57] Exceptions include 4th IAC, 204504/2023, 7 April 2023, pp. 14 and 17; 12th IAC, 168365/2023, 22 March 2023, pp. 11 and 14; 15th IAC, IP/20208/2024, 10 January 2024, para 16, as cited in ProAsyl and RSA, “The concept of “Safe third country”. Legal standards and Implementation in the Greek Asylum System, February 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/44fR5jV, p. 10, note 29.

[58] GCR, HIAS, RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2024, available here; GCR, HIAS, RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2024, available here.

[59] Article 56(1)(f) L 4375/2016.

[60] Article 56(1)(f) L 4375/2016.

[61] Article 86(1)(f) IPA and 91(1)(f) of the Asylum Code.

[62] Greek Council of State, Joint decisions 2347/2017 and 2348/2017, 22 September 2017, available here.

[63] RSA, The concept of “safe third country” – legal standards and implementation in the Greek asylum system, 20 February 2024, available here.

[64] RSA et al., The state of the border procedure on the Greek islands, September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/46PpMfC, p. 22.

[65] Ibid., pp. 23-24.

[66] Note that the decision refers to the applicant’s ‘right to request an international protection status’, even though persons under temporary protection are barred from applying for international protection, see AIDA, Country Report: Türkiye, 2017 Update, March 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/4aP9k23, p. 125.

[67] Council of State, Decision 2347/2017, 22 September 2017, para 62; Decision 2348/2017, 22 September 2017, para 62. Note the dissenting opinion of the Vice-President of the court, stating that transit alone cannot be considered a connection, since there was no voluntary stay for a significant period of time. See also EDAL, Greek Council of State, Decision no 2347/2017, 22 September 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3QibK0Z; EDAL, Greek Council of State on Turkey as a safe third country and aspects of the Greek Asylum procedure, 22 September 20177, available at: https://bit.ly/3UcgPJd; Joint decisions 2347/2017 and 2348/2017, 2347/2017 and 2348/201, Greece: Council of State, 22 September 2017, https://bit.ly/44uHAxr.

[68] GCR, HIAS, RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2024, 9 η ΕπΠροσ ΙΡ/129467/2024 . 9 η ΕπΠροσ ΙΡ/129654/2024 , both available in Greek here.

[69] For example, 1st IAC, 310227/2022, 1 June 2022, para 4.3; 6th IAC, 5892/2020, 27 May 2020, p. 25; 8th IAC, 103648/2023, 20 February 2023, pp. 8-9; 142176/2022, 11 March 2022, para 10; 458313/2021, 15 December 2021, para 10; 9th IAC, 288224/2021, 4 October 2021, p. 11; 13th IAC, IP/113682/2023, 13 September 2023, para 12; 22148/2023, 13 January 2023, para 9; 734754/2022, 7 December 2022, para 10; 14th IAC, IP/335367/2023, 6 December 2023, p. 23; 250567/2023, 3 May 2023, p. 28; 211179/2023, 11 April 2023, p. 28; 18th IAC, 672919/2022, 11 November 2022, p. 7; 165716/2021, 3 August 2021, p. 7; 165163/2021, 3 August 2021, p. 8; 68486/2021, 16 June 2021, p. 6; 19th IAC, 73674/2022, 8 February 2022, p. 18; 73459/2022, 8 February 2022, p. 12.