Overview of the main changes since the previous report update


Country Report: Overview of the main changes since the previous report update Last updated: 10/06/21


Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

The report was previously updated in June 2020.

General context

In 2020, 15,696 refugees and migrants arrived in Greece. This marks a decrease of 78.9% compared to 2019 (74,649 arrivals)[1]. Out of those, a total of 9,714 persons arrived in Greece by sea in 2020, compared to 59,726 in 2019. The majority originated from Afghanistan (35.2%), Syria (27.7%) and DRC (10.3%). More than half of the population were women (23.3%) and children (35.5%), while 41.2% were adult men. Moreover, 5,982 persons arrived in Greece through the Greek-Turkish land border of Evros in 2020, compared to a total of 14,887 in 2019. However, the figure of entries in 2020 may under-represent the number of people actually attempting to enter Greece, given that cases of alleged pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish border and at the Aegean Sea have been systematically reported in 2020.

The Asylum Service received 40,559 asylum applications in 2020 (47.52% decrease compared to 2019). Afghans were the largest group of applicants with 11,514 applications, followed by Syrians with 7,768 applications.

Following the July 2019 elections, the new government announced a more punitive policy on asylum, with a view to reduce the number of people arriving, increase the number of returns to Turkey and strengthen border control measures. Following the elections, the Ministry of Migration Policy has been repealed and subsumed to the Ministry of Citizens Protection. In January 2020, however, the Ministry for Migration and Asylum was re-established.

A new law on asylum has been issued in November 2019. L. 4636/2019 (hereinafter: International Protection Act/IPA). It has been repeatedly criticised by national and international human rights bodies including the Greek Ombudsman, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR), UNHCR and civil society organisations, as inter alia an attempt to lower protection standards and create unwarranted procedural and substantive hurdles for people seeking international protection. As noted by UNHCR, the new law reduces safeguards for people seeking international protection and creates additional pressure on the overstretched capacity of administrative and judicial authorities. “The proposed changes will endanger people who need international protection […] [the law] puts an excessive burden on asylum seekers and focuses on punitive measures. It introduces tough requirements that an asylum seeker could not reasonably be expected to fulfil” […] “As a result, asylum seekers may be easily excluded from the process without having their international protection needs adequately assessed. This may expose them to the risk of refoulement”. In May 2020, less than 5 months after the entry into force of the IPA, national legislation has been reamended. These amendments have been significantly criticised by human rights bodies, including the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights as they further weaken basic guarantees for persons in need of protection and introduces a set of provisions that can lead to arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and third country nationals.

Following an increasing number of cases of alleged pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish border of Evros during the previous years, allegations of pushbacks were also reported during 2020. The persisting practices of alleged pushbacks have been reported inter alia by UNHCR, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UN Committee against Torture, the Greek National Commission on Human Rights and civil society organisations. These allegations do not only refer to push backs at the land borders with Turkey (Evros) but also at the Aegean Sea. The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights thus stated on 3 March 2020: “I am alarmed by reports that some people in distress have not been rescued, while others have been pushed back or endangered”. In June 2020, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees invited Greece to investigate the numerous complaints for illegal refoulement operations in the land and sea borders of the country: “UNHCR has continuously addressed its concerns with the Greek government and has called for urgent inquiries into a series of alleged incidents reported in media, many of which corroborated by non-governmental organizations and direct testimonies. Such allegations have increased since March and reports indicate that several groups of people may have been summarily returned after reaching Greek territory”.

Asylum procedure

  • Operation of the Asylum Service: Similalry to 2019, the Asylum Service operated in 24 locations throughout the country at at the end of 2020, compared to 23 locations at the end of 2018. The recognition rate at first instance in 2020 was 33%, down from 55.9%, in 2019.
  • Access to the asylum procedure:Without underestimating the number of applications lodged in 2020, access to asylum on the mainland continued to be problematic throughout 2020. Access to the asylum procedure for persons detained in pre-removal centres is also a matter of concern. Following tension erupted on the Greek-Turkish land borders at the end of February 2020, on 2 March 2020, the Greek Authorities issued an Emergency Legislative Order (Πράξη Νομοθετικού Περιεχομένου/ΠΝΠ) by which access to the asylum procedure had been suspended for persons entering the country during March 2020. According to the Emergency Legislative Order, those persons were about to be returned to their country of origin or transit ‘without registration’. As noted by several actors, inter alia by UNHCR, “[a]ll States have a right to control their borders and manage irregular movements, but at the same time should refrain from the use of excessive or disproportionate force and maintain systems for handling asylum requests in an orderly manner. Neither the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees nor EU refugee law provides any legal basis for the suspension of the reception of asylum applications”. On 30 March 2020, following a legal action supported by the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), the Council of State partially accepted the request for interim orders for two vulnerable individuals, subject to the suspension of access to asylum, and ordered the Authorities to refrain from any forcible removal, while it rejected the request in a third case.  The Asylum Service, the Regional Asylum Offices (RAO) and the Autonomous Asylum Units (AAU) have all suspended the reception of public between 13  March  and 15  May 2020.  During this period, applications for international protection  were  not  registered,  interviews were not conducted and appeals were not registered. On the basis of a ministerial decision, the asylum seekers’ cards that expired between 13 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 were renewed for six months from the day of the expiry of the card.
  • The Asylum Service resumed its operation on  18  May  2020,  which  included  the  service  of  first instance  decisions  and  the  lodging of  appeals.  Since 18 May 2020,  a  number  of  administrative procedures (e.g. applications to change: the address, the telephone number, personal  data, the separation  of  files, the procurement  of  copies  from  the  personal  file,  the  rescheduling and  the prioritisation of hearings, the provision of legal aid etc.) can take place online. Interviews scheduled during the suspension of the work of the Asylum Service (13 March 2020 – 15 May 2020) were rescheduled. With the exception of persons under administrative detention, following the resumption of the operation of the Asylum Service, no registration of new asylum applications took place by the end of May 2020. The extension of international protection applicant cards was further extended with relevant ministerial decisions in 2020. After the second wave of Covid-19 cases in Greece, “in order to protect public health and impede the further spread of the COVID-19 virus”, the Director of the Asylum Service decided to suspend the operation of RAOs in the Attica region from 6 October 2020 to 9 October 2020. Said suspension was extended until 16 October. Moreover, between 7 and 30 November 2020, new measures against Covid-19 were applied to RAOs and AAUs nationwide. During this period, even though “programmed interviews and registrations via Skype took place according to schedule”, full registrations of asylum applications were not conducted except for those of very vulnerable applicants. According to L 4764/2020 and L 4790/2021 the validity of asylum seekers’ cards was further extended; in the beginning until 31 March 2021 and then until 30 June 2021. Thus, applicants of international protection do not have to renew their cards until 30 June 2021.
  • Processing times: For applications lodged on the mainland exclusively within 2020, the average period between the registration and the personal interview, is 61 days, while the average period between registration and the issuance of a first instance decision is 67 days. However, and despite the significant decrease on the number of new asylum applications registered in 2020 and the number of first instance decisions issued during the year, significant delays occur in processing applications at first instance if the total number of pending applications is taken into consideration, i.e. applications registered within 2020 and applications registered the previous years and pending by the end of 2020. More precisely, more than 1 out of 2 of the applications pending at first instance at the end of 2020 (68.3%), was pending for a period over 12 months since the day they were registered (39,211 out of the total 57,347 applications pending at the end of 2020).[2] In addition, in the 60.85% of the applications pending by the end of 2020, the personal interview has not been conducted (34,896 out of the total 57,347 applications pending at the end of 2020). Out of those applications in which the interview has not been conducted by the end of 2020, in 43.3% of the pending cases the interview has been scheduled after 2021 (15,142 cases). This is for example the cases of Turkish applicants to the knowledge of GCR, that the interview is scheduled no earlier than 2025. In 13,198 cases (37.8%) the interview has been scheduled within the first semester of 2021 and in 6,599 cases (18.7%) the interview has been scheduled within the second semester of 2021. Thus, given the number of the applications, the backlog of cases pending for prolonged periods is likely to increase, if the capacity of the Asylum Service is not further increased.
  • First instance procedure: The IPA foresees an extended list of cases in which an application for international protection can be rejected as “manifestly unfounded” without any in-merits examination and without assessing the risk of refoulement, even in case that the applicant did not manage to comply with (hard to meet) procedural requirements and formalities. In addition, the IPA introduced the possibility of a ‘fictitious service’ (πλασματική επίδοση) of first instance decisions, with a registered letter to the applicant or to the authorised lawyers, consultants, representatives or even the Head of the Regional Asylum Office/Independent Asylum Unit, where the application was submitted or the Head of the Reception or Accommodation Centre. Given that the deadline for lodging an appeal starts from the day following the (fictitious) service, this deadline may expire without the applicant being actually informed about the issuance of the decision, for reasons not attributable to the latter. As noted by the Greek Ombudsman, the provisions relating to this fictitious service effectively limit the access of asylum seekers to legal remedies.
  • Fast-track border procedure: The EU-Turkey statement, adopted in March 2016 and initially described as “a temporary and extraordinary measure” continues to be implemented to those arrived by sea on the Aegean islands. The impact of the EU-Turkey statement has been inter aliade facto dichotomy of the asylum procedures applied in Greece. Asylum seekers arriving after 20 March 2016 on the Greek islands are subject to a fast-track border procedure with limited guarantees. As noted by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) “almost three years of experience [of processing asylum claims in facilities at borders] in Greece shows, [that] this approach creates fundamental rights challenges that appear almost insurmountable”.
  • Legal assistance: No state-funded free legal aid is provided at first instance, nor is there an obligation to provide it in law. A state-funded legal aid scheme in the appeal procedure on the basis of a list managed by the Asylum Service operates since September 2017. Despite this welcome development, the capacity of the second instance legal aid scheme remains limited and almost 2 out of 3 appellants do not benefit from free legal assistance at second instance.
  • Appeal: Recognition rates at second instance remained low in 2020. Out of the total in-merits second instance decision issued in 2020, 4.2% resulted in the granting of international protection; 1.48% resulted in the granting of humanitarian protection and 63% resulted in a negative decision. Effective access to the second instance procedure has been restricted in practice severely by the 2019 legislative amendment (IPA). According to the IPA, an appeal against a first instance decision inter alia should be submitted in a written form (in Greek) and mention the “specific grounds” of the appeal. Otherwise, the appeal is rejected as inadmissible without any in-merits examination. Given the fact that said requisites can only be fulfilled with the assistance of a lawyer, and the significant shortcoming in the provision of free legal assistance under the free legal aid scheme, appeals procedures are practically non-accessible for the vast majority of applicants, in violation of Article 46 of the Directive 2013/32/EU and Article 47 of the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights. As stated by UNHCR, “[i]n some circumstances, it would be so difficult to appeal against a rejection that the right to an effective remedy enshrined in international and EU law, would be seriously compromised”. The IPA abolished the automatic suspensive effect for certain appeals, in particular those concerning applications rejected in the accelerated procedure or dismissed as inadmissible under certain grounds. A ‘fictitious service’ of the second instance decision is also foreseen by the IPA, which entails the risk that deadlines for judicial review have expired without the appellant having been actually informed about the issuance of the decision.
  • Dublin: There has been a considerable increase of take-charge requests compared to the previous year. In 2020, Greece addressed 7,014 outgoing requests to other Member States under the Dublin Regulation of which 1,922 were not sent within the three-month deadline. Out of them, 2,009 requests were rejected by the requested Member states, while 2,385 requests were accepted. Article 22 (7) was enacted in 80 cases, raising the number of the finally accepted take-charge requests to 2,465. Compared to last year, the cases that were accepted were more than those rejected, thus returning to a pattern that had been established from the entry into force of the Dublin III Regulation until the year of 2018. By the end of 2020, the procedure is still pending for 277 cases that have been rejected, but no final decision has been issued. Additional obstacles to family reunification continued to occur in 2020 due to practices adopted by a number of the receiving Member States, and due to Covid-19 restrictions, which may underestimate the right to family life. In a number of cases domestic courts in different Member States have suspended Dublin transfers.
  • Relocation:  In January 2020, the Alternate Minister for Migration Policy reiterated Portugal’s willingness to accept up to 1,000 asylum seekers and stated that Greece and Portugal have already been working on this project. A new project for the relocation of 400 vulnerable asylum seekers to France has also been announced in January 2020, aiming at the completion of the relocations by the summer of 2020. In March of 2020, the Commission launched a relocation scheme, under which vulnerable people from Greece would be transferred to other EU Member States, aiming to support Greece in its efforts to cope with the critical situation. Unaccompanied children and children with severe medical conditions who are accompanied by their families, are the two categories of persons of concern who could be included in the program. Eleven EU countries are participating in this scheme, among which are France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal and Bulgaria. The Commission is implementing this program with the assistance of UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and UNICEF, following the eligibility criteria as set in the relevant SOPs. Homeless children, children living in precarious conditions, such as safe zone areas in camps and minors being previously detained, are considered eligible for the program. By December of 2020, 2,209 asylum seekers and refugees have been relocated from Greece to other EU countries, such as Germany, Finland, Portugal, Belgium, Luxemburg, Ireland, France, Bulgaria and Lithuania. Of these, 573 are unaccompanied children and 1,292 vulnerable families and adults.
  • Safe third country:Since mid-2016, the same template decision is issued to dismiss claims of Syrians applicants as inadmissible on the basis that Turkey is a safe third country for them. Accordingly, negative first instance decisions qualifying Turkey as a safe third country for Syrians are not only identical and repetitive – failing to provide an individualised assessment – but also outdated insofar as they do not take into account developments after that period, such as the current legal framework in Turkey, including the derogation from the principle of non-refoulement. Second instance decisions issued by the Independent Appeals Committees for Syrian applicants systematically uphold the first instance inadmissibility decisions. In 2020 and as far as GCR is aware, most cases of Syrian applicants examined under the fact track border procedure have been rejected at 2nd instance as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept (1,234 inadmissible and 302 admissible). Contrary to the requirements of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, no rules on the methodology by which the competent authorities satisfy themselves that the safe third country concept may be applied to a particular country or to a particular applicant is provided by national legislation (IPA). According to the IPA, “transit” as such through a third country in conjunction with specific circumstances may be considered as a valid ground in order to be considered that the applicant could reasonably return in this country. The compatibility of said provision with the EU acquis should be further assessed, in particular by taking into consideration the recent CJEU case law (C924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU).
  • According to the official statistics of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum published in January 2021, “Returns under the EU- Turkey Joint Declaration have not been made since March [2020] due to Covid-19 [and] despite the lifting of the measures for the pandemic, from 01/06[/2020] the requests of missions-returns of the Greek authorities have not been answered.” Moreover, article 86(5) IPA provides that “when the safe third country does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, his/her application should be examined on the merits from the competent Authorities”. However, despite the suspension of returns to Turkey since March 2020 and the aforementioned provision of article 86(5) IPA, during 2020 the applications lodged by Syrians in the Eastern Aegean Islands whose geographical restriction was not lifted, were still examined in the context of the safe third country concept and the Fast-Track Border Procedure.
  • On 7 June 2021, a Ministerial Decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Migration and Asylum was issued, designating Turkey as “safe third country” in a national list for asylum seekers originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia.[1] As a result, the applications lodged by those nationalities can be rejected as “inadmissible” without being examined on the merits.
  • Identification of vulnerability: Even though in 2020 there were no long delays between the arrival and the vulnerability assessment, as was the case before, the low quality of the process of medical and psychosocial screening remained a source of serious concern. Until now, alarming reports indicate that vulnerabilities are often missed, with individuals going through the asylum procedure without having their vulnerability assessment completed first. UNHCR reported that “access to health care for asylum-seekers and refugees continued to be limited at several locations across Greece, in particular on the islands, mainly due to the limited public sector medical staff and difficulties in obtaining the necessary documentation.” The regulatory framework for the guardianship of unaccompanied children initially introduced in 2018 was still not operational as of May 2021.

Reception conditions


  • Freedom of movement:Asylum seekers subject to the EU-Turkey statement are issued a geographical restriction, ordering them not to leave the respective island until the end of the asylum procedure. The practice of geographical restriction has led to a significant overcrowding of the facilities on the islands and thus to the deterioration of reception conditions. In 2018, following an action brought by GCR, the Council of State annulled the Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service regarding the imposition of the geographical limitation. However, following a new Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service, the geographical restriction on the Eastern Aegean islands has been reintroduced. Legal action filed against the new Decision for the geographical limitation by GCR before the Council of State was still pending as of May 2021. A new regulatory framework for the geographical restriction on the islands entered into force in January 2020, which has significantly limited the categories of applicants for whom the restriction can be lifted. Thus, the implementation of the latter increased the number of applicants remaining on the Greek islands and further deteriorated the conditions there.
  • Reception capacity: Most temporary camps on the mainland, initially created as emergency accommodation facilities continued to operate throughout 2020. In December 2020, a number of 28,356 persons were accommodated in mainland camps, most of whom were children (43%) and women (24%).[3] Additionally, 28,148 people were accommodated under the ESTIA II accommodation scheme in December 2020, nearly 52% were children. Of the ESTIA II residents in December 2020, 14,392 were asylum seekers and 6,827 beneficairies of international protection. Respectively, as of 15 January 2020, despite an overall and welcome increase in relevant capacity, there were 4,048 unaccompanied and separated children in Greece but only 1,715 places in long-term dedicated accommodation facilities, and 1,094 places in temporary accommodation. As of 31 December 2020, 17,005 persons remained on the Eastern Aegean islands, of which 397 were in detention in police cells and the Pre-Removal Detention Centre (PRDC) of Kos. The nominal capacity of reception facilities, including RICs, the temporary Mavrovouni camp and other accommodation facilities, was at 16,710 places. The nominal capacity of the RIC facilities (hotspots) was of 3,338, while 7,093 persons were residing there. Another 7,172 persons were residing in the temporary Mavrovouni camp, which had a nominal capacity of 10,000 places.[4] Meanwhile, capacity in alternative accommodation facilities has been reduced in 2020, following the closure of PIKPA Lesvos and PIKPA Leros. Both facilities were offering dignified reception to particularly vulnerable asylum applicants. Particularly in the case of Lesvos, the closure of PIKPA took place just a month after the fires that destroyed the Moria RIC left more than 12,000 homeless asylum seekers, who were subsequently transferred to the emergency Mavrovouni facility (Kara Tepe), which remains unfit for purpose to this day.
  • Living conditions: As it has been widely documented, reception facilities on the islands remain substandard. Overcrowding, a lack of sufficient access to basic services, including medical care, limited sanitary facilities, and violence and lack of security continued to pose significant protection risks in 2020. The mental health of the applicants on the islands has also continued aggravating due to prolonged containement that became even stricter during 2020, in the context of disproportionate restrictions imposed on camps and RICs amid measures aimed at restricting the spread of COVID-19. In February 2020, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees “called for urgent action to address the increasingly desperate situation of refugees and migrants in reception centres in the Aegean islands”. The High Commissioner underlined that “[c]onditions on the islands are shocking and shameful”. On the mainland, several mainland camps have continued to operate below standards provided under EU and national law, especially for long-term living. The main gaps relate to the remote and isolated location, the type of shelter, the lack of security, and inter alia restrictions on movement which continued to impact on access to social services, including for persons with specific needs and children.

Detention of asylum seekers

  • Statistics: The number of asylum seekers detained in pre-removal detention facilities in Greece decreased considerably in 2020, as well as the total number of third country nationals under administrative detention. The total number of third-country nationals detained in pre-removal detention facilities during 2020 was 10,130. At the end of 2020, there were 3,271 persons in administrative detention in pre-removal facilities and in several other detention facilities countrywide such as police stations; border guard stations etc, of whom 1,851 were asylum seekers. Furthermore, at the end of 2020, the total number of unaccompanied children in administrative detention in pre-removal detention centers countrywide was 16 and in other detention facilities such as police stations was 18. Additionally, at the end of 2020, the total number of unaccompanied children in “protective custody” was 30, according to the official statistics of EKKA (National Center for Social Solidarity).
  • Detention facilities: There were 6 active pre-removal detention facilities (PRDF) in Greece at the end of 2020. Police stations continued to be used for prolonged immigration detention.
  • Amendments to the legal framework on detention: The IPA introduced extensive provisions for the detention of asylum seekers and significantly lowered guarantees regarding the imposition of detention measures against asylum applicants, threatening to undermine the principle that detention of asylum seekers should only be applied exceptionally and as a measure of last resort. Inter alia the IPA increases the maximum time limit for the detention of asylum seekers to 18 months and additionally provides that the period of detention on the basis of return or deportation procedures is not calculated in the total time of detention, and thus the total detention period of a third country national within the migration context may reach 36 months (18 months while the asylum procedure + 18 months in view of removal). On May 2020, L. 4686/2020 introduced new amendments to IPA, regarding the detention of asylum seekers and their rights while in detention. Moreover L. 4686/2020 introduced a new type of “closed” facilities and amended relevant provision of L. 3907/2011 on pre-removal detention. No measures with regard to the decongestion of detention facilities and the reduction of the number of detainees have been taken during the COVID-19 outbreak. The proportionality/necessity of the detention measures have not been re-examined, despite the suspension of the returns to a number of countries of origin or destination, including Turkey, and the delays occurred due to the suspension of the work of the Asylum Service, during the COVID-19 crisis. Despite the fact that detention of recognised refugees is nowhere prescribed within the relevant legislation, during 2020 the authorities detained systematically beneficiaries of international protection on public order grounds.
  • Detention of vulnerable persons:  Persons belonging to vulnerable groups are detained in practice, without a proper identification of vulnerability and individualised assessment prior to the issuance of a detention order. Due to the lack of accommodation facilities or transit facilities for children, detention of unaccompanied children is systematically imposed and may be prolonged for periods. In the field of detention of unaccompanied and separated children, there has been significant progress in the Greek legislation despite the fact that the former continued to be detained (either in administrative detention or in “protective custody”) during 2020. On 11 December 2020, L. 4760/2020 entered into force and abolished the possibility of keeping unaccompanied migrant children in protective police custody only on the basis that they have no residence, as part of an overall reform by the Greek authorities to improve living conditions of unaccompanied migrant children in Greece. However, other legal provisions that allow the detention of unaccompanied minors are still in force.
  • Detention conditions:In many cases, the conditions of detention in pre-removal centres fail to meet adequate standards, inter alia due to their carceral and prison-like design. Police stations and other police facilities, which are not suitable for detention exceeding 24 hours by nature, continue to fall short of basic standards. Overall, available medical services provided in pre-removal centres are inadequate compared to the needs observed. At the end of 2020, there were ten doctors in total in the detention centres across the country (3 in Amygdaleza, 2 in Tavros, 1 in Korinthos, 2 in Xanthi, 1 in Paranesti and 1 in Kos). Medical and psychological services are not provided in police stations.
  • Legal Remedies against Detention: The ability for detained persons to challenge detention orders is severely restricted in practice due to gaps in the provision of interpretation and a lack of free legal aid, resulting in the lack of access to judicial remedies against detention decisions. Limited judicial control regarding the lawfulness and the conditions of detention remains a long-lasting matter of concern.

Content of international protection

  • Family reunification:Administrative obstacles, in particular for the issuance of visas even in cases where the application for family reunification has been accepted, continue to hinder the effective exercise of the right to family reunification for refugees.
  • Naturalization: Following an amendment of the Citizenship Code in March 2020, the minimum period of lawful residence required for submitting an application for citizenship in the case of recognised refugees has been increased from 3 to 7 years, despite the legal obligation of the Greek Authorities under Article 34 of the Geneva Convention 1951 to “facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees” and “in particular make every effort to expedite naturalisation proceedings”.
  • Housing of recognised refugees: Following an amendment to the asylum legislation in early March 2020, beneficiaries of international protection residing in accommodation facilities must leave these centres within a 30-days period after the granting of international protection. As regards unaccompanied minors, they must also comply with that 30-days deadline once they reach the age of majority. Given the limited integration of recognised beneficiaries of international protection in Greece, this results in a high risk of homelessness and destitution.




[1]  UNCHR, Operational Portal, Mediterranean Situation: Greece, available at: https://bit.ly/3t8i3GD.

[2] Information provided by the Asylum Service, 31 March 2021. However, according to the official statistics of the Asylum Service the pending applications at the end of 2020 were 76,335; see Ministry of Migration and Asylum, Yearly Report 2020, published in January 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3uBkAJC

[3] IOM, Supporting the Greek Authorities in Managing the National Reception System for Asylum Seekers and Vulnerable Migrants (SMS), December 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3vnZTBV.

[4] National Coordination Center for Border Control, Immigration and Asylum (N.C.C.B.C.I.A.), National Situational Picture Regarding the Islands at Eastern Aegean Sea (31/12/2020), 1 January 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3nApkx6.

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