Fast-track border procedure (Eastern Aegean islands)

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

General (scope, time limits)

Although the fast-track border procedure was initially introduced as an exceptional and temporary procedure, it has become the rule for a significant number of applications lodged in Greece. The total number of first time applications lodged before the island RAOs (Chios, Kos, Leros, Lesvos and Samos) was 22,550 throughout 2025, according to the official monthly statistics published by the MoMA.[1]

The impact of the EU-Türkiye Statement has been, inter alia, a de facto dichotomy in the asylum procedures applied in Greece.^[2] This is because the fast-track procedure is only applied in cases of applicants subject to the EU-Türkiye Statement, i.e., applicants who arrived on the Greek Eastern Aegean islands after 20 March 2016 and have lodged applications before the RAO of Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros and Kos.

Moreover, since 2023, asylum applicants arriving in Rhodes are transferred inter alia to Leros and Kos CCACs and lodge applications before Leros and Kos RAOs, respectively. They are therefore channeled into the fast-track border procedure despite having arrived on another island.^[3] It should be noted that no reception conditions are provided in Rhodes during the period pending their transfer. The same practice has continued throughout 2025.[4]

By contrast, applications lodged before the Asylum Unit of Fylakio by newly arrived persons who entered through the Greek-Turkish land border and remain in the Fylakio RIC in Evros are not examined under the fast-track border procedure. In 2025, a total of 7,644 first-time applications were lodged before the Asylum Unit of Fylakio.[5]

Article 95(3) Asylum Code foresees that the fast-track procedure can be applied as long as third country nationals who have applied for international protection at the border or at airport / port transit zones or while remaining in RICs, are regularly accommodated in places close to the borders or transit zones. Initially, a JMD issued on 30 December 2020, provided for the application of the fast-track border procedure under Article 90 (3) IPA (L. 4636/2019) for those who arrived at the Greek Eastern Aegean Islands.^[6]

Main features of the fast-track border procedure under the Asylum Code

The fast-track border procedure under Article 95(3) Asylum Code repeats the previous legal framework and provides inter alia that:

• The registration of asylum applications, the notification of decisions and other procedural documents, as well as the receipt of appeals, may be conducted by staff of the Hellenic Police or the Armed Forces, if police staff are not sufficient.
• The asylum applicant interview may also be conducted by Greek-speaking personnel deployed by EUAA. However, Article 95(3) Asylum Code has maintained the possibility, “in particularly urgent circumstances”, for the interview to be conducted by trained personnel of the Hellenic Police or the Armed Forces, as long as they have received specific training.
• The asylum procedure shall be concluded in a short time period.

This may –and often does– result in compromising the procedural guarantees provided by the international, EU and national legal frameworks, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer. Extremely brief time limits significantly affect the procedural guarantees to which asylum applicants are entitled in a fast-track procedure and, therefore, there should be an assessment of their conformity with Article 43 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD), which provides that restrictions on procedural rights in a border procedure cannot be imposed for reasons related to large numbers of arrivals.

More precisely, according to Article 95(3)(c) Asylum Code:

• the Asylum Service shall issue a first instance decision within seven days;
• the deadline for the submission of an appeal against a negative decision is ten days;
• the deadline for the submission of an appeal does not always have an automatic suspensive effect, as provided by Article 110 (3) Asylum Code, and a separate application for suspension of removal needs to be submitted before the Appeals Authority, within the deadline for the submission of the appeal;
• the examination of an appeal shall be carried out within four days. The appellant is notified within one day to appear for a hearing before the Appeals’ Committees or to submit supplementary evidence; and
• the second instance decision shall be issued within seven days.

It should be noted that these very short time limits seem to be exclusively at the expense of applicants for international protection in practice. In fact, whereas timelines are, as a general principle, not compulsory for the authorities and case processing at the borders takes several months on average, applicants still have to comply with the very short time limits provided by Article 95(3) Asylum Code.^[7] In 2024, official data regarding the average time between the full registration of the asylum application and the issuance of a first instance decision under the fast-track border procedure was not available.

In 2025, the fast-track border procedure continued being variably implemented depending on the profile and nationality of the asylum applicants concerned (see also Differential Treatment of Specific Nationalities in the Procedure). Yet as in previous years,[8] specific data on in-merit and inadmissibility decisions issued by the Asylum Service under this procedure have not been made available by the MoMA for 2025.

To be noted, the procedure continued being applied despite the lack of any reasonable prospect of return to Türkiye, as is well known by the Greek authorities:

• In October 2021, notes by the Readmission Unit of the Hellenic Police Headquarters confirmed that Türkiye has indefinitely suspended returns from Greece since 16 March 2020. Due to this suspension, the Greek authorities stopped sending readmission requests to Türkiye based on the Common EU- Türkiye Statement for rejected asylum seekers.^[9]
• According to MoMA’s Report 2024: ‘Returns under the EU – Turkey Joint Declaration have not been made since March 2020 due to Covid-19. It should be noted that despite the lifting of the Covid-19 measures the requests of missions-returns of the Greek authorities have not been answered’.^[10]
• In a 20 September 2024 press release, the (former) Minister of Migration and Asylum, Mr Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, mentioned inter alia “but as far as Turkey is concerned, since we talked about the southeastern Aegean, we discussed the issue of Turkey with the Germans, and we certainly put on the table that Turkey must at some point start implementing the agreement it made with the European Union in 2016, which talks about returns to Turkey, and has stopped making returns since 2020 and the events in Evros, and we said of course that Turkey must also be pressured to cooperate.”[11] Despite this suspension, the Greek authorities refused to examine applications for international protection on their merits, as required by Article 91(5) of Asylum Code.

That being said, in a positive development since roughly September 2023, asylum applicants from countries with recognition rate of over 95% (i.e., applicants from Palestine, Yemen, Sudan) have been, in the context of the border procedure, granted refugee status on the basis of their administrative file, without undergoing an asylum interview, in application of Article 82 para. 7 of the Asylum Code. However, in Lesvos, a malpractice has been observed with regard to Eritrean nationals. Specifically, individuals who have stated being Eritreans but who had resided most of their life in Ethiopia have been falsely registered as Ethiopians. It has been observed by legal actors that FRONTEX assessed them as Ethiopian nationals and not as Eritreans contrary to their statements. Legal aid actors observed the following:^[12]

• The applicants underwent a nationality assessment during their interview at RAO Lesvos, during which they were asked questions regarding Eritrea which they could be reasonably unable to answer (since applicants claimed that they left their country of origin when they were very young, lost their parents, etc).
• In some cases, two interviews were conducted: RAO called the applicant for a 2nd interview during which they informed them that RAO, based on the first interview including a nationality assessment, rejected their claim as Eritrean national, concluded that they are Ethiopian and then asked the applicant whether they wanted to submit an application to change their nationality.
• It appears that the Estimated Nationality during the identification procedure functioned as an irrebuttable presumption and could only be disputed if original documents were provided. Some negative decisions claimed that: “The applicant did not provide the [Asylum] Office with an original identification document or other document in support of her [/his] claims in the context of the examination of her [/his] application for international protection. Her [his] administrative file contains a screening report No [XXXXXX] addressed to the Commander of the Lesvos RIC, where it is marked as Estimated Nationality after Screening, ETHIOPIA, as resulting from the identification procedure.”
• In some cases, while the Asylum Service accepted that the applicant was born in Eritrea, it rejected the nationality claim (as not internally credible due to the lack of information provided/inability to answer the questions regarding Eritrea) and held thereafter the asylum application unfounded.
• Another decision rejected an asylum application as manifestly unfounded, according to Article 93 par. 2 d, on the basis that the applicant provided false information regarding his nationality and tried to mislead the authorities.
• In some cases, where lawyers asked Lesvos RIS for copies of their clients’ files, there was no report to be provided regarding the nationality assessment.^[13]
• A eport has been submitted asking for the intervention of the Greek Ombudsperson regarding a case pending at second instance. ^[14]

• No cases of the above-described malpractice were observed in the mainland.^[15]

In accordance with Article 92(5) Asylum Code, applications of asylum applicants nationals of countries listed as ‘safe countries of origin’ in the national list have been examined on the merits only to the extent of their claims against the application of the safe country of origin assumption.^[16]

It has been highlighted that “the practice of applying different asylum procedures according to the nationalities of the applicants is arbitrary, as it is neither provided by EU nor by domestic law. In addition, it violates the principle of non-discrimination as set out in Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the status of refugees (Geneva Convention). Instead, it is explicitly based on EUAA’s undisclosed internal guidelines, which frame the hotspot asylum procedures in order to implement the EU-Türkiye statement.”^[17]

Exempted categories from the fast-track border procedure under the Asylum Code

As opposed to previous legislation, the Asylum Code repealed the exception of persons belonging to vulnerable groups and applicants falling under the Dublin Regulation from the fast-track border procedure (see Identification and Special procedural guarantees). Data for the number of cases exempted from the border procedure on grounds of vulnerability and need for special procedurals guaranteed under the Asylum Code in 2025 is not available.

In 2024, Lesvos RAO automatically applied non-border procedures for applicants to whom first instance decisions had not been notified within 28 days from registration, without however first issuing any decision for a referral to the regular procedure as, according to the RAO, this is not foreseen in the law.^[18] In these cases, the deadline for the appeal is automatically extended as follows: for admissibility, the 10 days are automatically extended to 20 days, for eligibility, to 30 days, and for eligibility for cases falling under the safe country of origin concept to 20 days. This practice is based on Article 95 (2) Asylum Code.^[19] The same practice has been observed by legal aid actors in Kos RAO;^[20] the practice was first noticed at the beginning of 2023 and continued throughout 2024.

Furthermore, the total number of unaccompanied minors examined under border procedures in 2025 is not available. In particular, as far as unaccompanied minors are concerned, Article 80 (7) Asylum Code provides that applications filed by minors under the age of 15, as well as minors who are victims of human trafficking, torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence are to be examined under the regular procedure. However, Article 95(4) Asylum Code provides that unaccompanied minors are examined under the fast-track border procedure if:

• the minor comes for a country designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with the national list (according to Article 92 (5) Asylum Code);
• they submit a subsequent application;
• they are considered a threat to the public order/national security;
• there are reasonable grounds to believe that a country can be considered as a safe third country for the minor, and if it is in line with the best interest of the minor;
• the unaccompanied minor has misled the authorities by submitting false documents or they have destroyed or they have lost in bad faith their identification documents or travel document, under the conditions that they or their guardian be given the opportunity to provide sufficient justification for it.

Personal interview

According to Article 69 (1) Asylum Code, asylum applicants are already required at the stage of registration of their asylum application before RAOs, to give exhaustive reasons for fleeing their country of origin. If they fail to mention all reasons during registration, they have no right to develop claims which are only mentioned for the first time during their asylum interview. However, in practice, the registration of the asylum application in the islands is too succinct to provide them with the opportunity to do so, as it only focuses on very basic information.

At the end of 2021, the Reception Service (RIS) at the Kos and Samos RICs (now CCACs) started carrying out the full registration of asylum applications, as opposed to it being done by the Asylum Service until then. In 2022 this practice was adopted by the RISs/CCACs in all the islands. Ever since the registration of asylum applications was removed from the missions of the Asylum Service and was undertaken by the RIS. The registration form includes very limited information. Nevertheless, in practice, asylum applicants have the opportunity during their interviews to present their full claims, including information that was not mentioned in their registration form.

In cases of vulnerable applicants, according to Article 82(4) Asylum Code, if their interview is scheduled within 15 days from the submission of their application, the applicants have to be granted reasonable time to prepare themself and consult a legal or other adviser to assist them during the interview. The reasonable time for preparation is determined by the competent authority, meaning the Asylum Service, and cannot exceed three (3) days. If the interview is scheduled at a time later than fifteen (15) days from the submission of the application, no preparation time is granted. If the interview is postponed, no further preparation time is granted. This means that in the latter two cases, applicants are not given any additional time to prepare themselves for the interview from the time they are informed of their interview appointment.

Article 95(3)(c) of the Asylum Code stipulates that first instance decisions shall be issued within seven days. However, in practice, based on the observations of legal and psychosocial actors operating in the field, including GCR, newcomers undergo the interview without prior adequate evaluation of their potential vulnerabilities. Most of the time, the RIS’ Medical and Psychosocial Unit (not always staffed by a doctor) proceeds with a typical medical check and records only manifest vulnerabilities.

There is also no information exchange mechanism between the Vulnerability Focal Point (VFP) of the RIS and the RAO, and no relevant joint process to ensure that interviews are scheduled after the vulnerability assessment has been completed. Even when RAO caseworkers refer the case to the RIC’s Medical and Psychosocial Unit for further vulnerability assessment, they do so after the interview has been completed. No postponements have been granted for interviews despite the applicants’ and their legal representatives’ requests that vulnerability assessments be completed prior to the interview. Accordingly, in such cases, vulnerable applicants cannot benefit from the foreseen reasonable time for preparation, since they have not had the opportunity to be identified as such (i.e. vulnerable).

Article 74(3) Asylum Code expressly foresees that communication with the applicants (including as part of interviews) may be conducted in the official language of their country of origin, or in another language that they are reasonably considered to understand, if it has been proven manifestly impossible for the authorities to provide interpretation in their native language. In practice, applicants’ refusal to undergo procedures in the official language of their country of origin, rather than their native languages, may be considered a violation of their obligation to cooperate with the authorities and can lead to the rejection of their application (see relatively Articles 39, 74, 83 and 93 Asylum Code).

According to the Article 83 (9 and 10) Asylum Code :

Applicants shall be specifically informed of these obligations and their rights pursuant to this Article and Article 74 of this Code in a language they understand in a simple and accessible manner and a certificate to this effect shall be drawn up, indicating the language of communication. In all other respects, paragraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis. 2 of Article 74 of this Code shall apply mutatis mutandis. In the event of a breach of the duty to cooperate with the competent authorities, as specified in the preceding paragraphs, in particular, failure to communicate with the authorities and failure to cooperate in order to ascertain the information necessary for the examination of the application, which impedes the smooth completion of the procedures for examining the application for international protection, the application for international protection or the appeal shall be deemed to be implicitly withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 of this Code. And Article 74 (2 abcd and 6) “When making an application for international protection, applicants have the right to be informed in writing, in a language they understand, in a simple and accessible way, so that they can effectively understand the content of the document:

(a) the procedure to be followed,

(b) their rights,

(c) their duty to cooperate with the national authorities at every stage of the procedure and their obligations,

(d) the consequences of breaching the duty of cooperation with the national authorities by failing to comply with their obligations. In particular, they are reminded of the consequences of not being found at the declared place of residence or address, of the express or implied withdrawal of their application, of not appearing in person at any stage of the procedure, “ “ Applicants shall be informed in a language they understand, in a simple and accessible manner, of the outcome of the decision on the application for international protection, as well as of the possibility of appealing against the negative decision, the relevant time limit and the body before which the decision is appealed, and the place of its seat.

According to the Article 86 (1) Asylum Code:

[…] Where it is not possible to examine the application adequately on the basis of the information available to the service, as provided for in the previous subparagraph, the Deciding Authorities shall stop the examination of the application and issue a decision to discontinue. The decision to discontinue the examination of the application for international protection shall also order the return of the applicant, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3907/2011 and Law No. 3386/2005. The aforementioned acts shall be notified as provided for in Article 87 of this Code.” (2)(e) (g) “Implied withdrawal shall be deemed to exist in particular where it is established that the applicant has not complied with the obligations set out in Article 83 of this Code, or has not fulfilled the reporting or other communication obligations…does not cooperate with the authorities in breach of the duty to cooperate, as defined in Article 83”

According to Article 95(3)(b) Asylum Code, the personal interview may be conducted by Asylum Service or EUAA personnel or, “in particularly urgent circumstances”, by trained personnel of the Hellenic Police or the Armed Forces.^[21] With regard to the possibility of personnel of the Hellenic Police or Armed Forces to conduct personal interviews, Amnesty International has underlined that the application of such provision “would be a serious backward step that will compromise the impartiality of the asylum procedure”.^[22] As of 2024, the Hellenic Police or Armed Forces have not carried out personal asylum interviews, however, they did undertake the full registration of asylum applications in certain circumstances.

EUAA (former EASO)’s competence to conduct interviews was introduced by a legal amendment in June 2016, following an initial implementation period of the EU-Türkiye Statement, during which the exact role of the Agency’s staff and the legal remit of their involvement in the asylum procedure was uncertain. The EASO Special Operating Plans to Greece foresaw a role for EASO in conducting interviews (face-to-face and remote) in different asylum procedures, drafting opinions and recommending decisions to the Asylum Service throughout 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.^[23] A similar role is foreseen in the Operational & Technical Assistance Plan to Greece 2022-2024, including in the Regular procedure,^[24] as well as in  updated plan for 2025.[25]

In practice, in cases where the interview is conducted by an EUAA Greek-speaking caseworker, the latter provides an opinion / recommendation (πρόταση / εισήγηση) on the case to the Asylum Service, which remains the competent authority for the issuance of the decision. The transcript of the interview and the opinion / recommendation are written in Greek. The issuance of an opinion / recommendation by EUAA personnel to the Asylum Service is not foreseen by any provision in national law and thus lacks a legal basis.^[26] Finally, a caseworker of the Asylum Service, without having had any direct contact with the applicant, e.g., to ask further questions, issues the decision based on the interview transcript and the opinion / recommendation provided by EUAA, without being bound by it.^[27]

During 2024, legal aid organisations operating in Lesvos observed a long-standing problem with asylum interview transcripts, which were often poorly written. This resulted in an inadequate, inaccurate or sometimes incomprehensible reflection of asylum applicants’ claims.[28]

Based on the observations of legal aid organisations, including GCR, in a number of cases, decisions were issued by RAOs and/or AAUs other than those where the interviews were conducted, operating supportively to the latter.

In Lesvos, interviews are primarily conducted by employees of the RAO Lesvos. On rare occasions, interviews are conducted remotely, as in a recent case involving a young Egyptian asylum seeker. In this instance, the interview was conducted remotely by a handler from the RAO of Rhodes. However, the issuance and notification of the decision remain pending.

In Samos, 90% of admissibility interviews are conducted remotely by caseworkers from Lesvos. Some interviews take place via phone calls.

In Chios, admissibility interviews are conducted remotely by caseworkers from Lesvos through the EU Asylum Agency (EUAA). Some interviews are conducted by caseworkers of the local Asylum Office, while certain cases are referred to the Regional Asylum Office of Nikaia for the issuance of decisions.[29]

In 2024, in Lesvos, applicants continued to receive an invitation for their interview according to which they needed to present themselves before the RAO in Pagani area at the day of their interview at 7:00 am, without any information regarding the actual time that their interview was scheduled.^[30] In practice, this meant that there were many applicants that appeared before the RAO’s gate at 6:30 only to start their interviews at 12:00 or even at a later time, while waiting all these hours in an open-air space, often exposed to bad weather conditions. The situation is only slightly different when applicants are represented by a lawyer, who on his/her own initiative will contact the Asylum Service on the phone to confirm the time of the interview or to find out approximately what time the interview will start, but this does not mean that the agreed time will be strictly adhered to.

Additionally, there was no waiting area at the premises of the RAO for the lawyers who represent asylum applicants at registrations and interviews. Moreover, employees of the RAO very often refused to receive the lawyers in the offices, within the premises of the RAO.^[31] Instead, the lawyers were received in the courtyard, in circumstances that violated the necessary conditions of confidentiality and, in general, the dignified exercise of the legal profession. In many cases, both attorneys and asylum applicants waited for long, exhausting hours, resulting in fatigue, jeopardising the quality of the interviews. The issue of the lack of waiting area persisted in 2024.^[32]

The same practice persisted during 2025 and was noted also in the regular procedure.

Quality of interviews

The quality of interviews conducted by EUAA and RAO caseworkers has been highly criticised. Inter alia, quality gaps such as lack of knowledge about countries of origin, lack of cultural sensitivity, questions based on a predefined list, closed and leading questions, repetitive questions, frequent interruptions and unnecessarily exhaustive interviews and conduct preventing lawyers from asking questions at the end of the interview continue to be reported.^[33]

In 2023, legal aid actors continued to observe issues concerning the quality of the interviews as well as the procedural fairness of how they are conducted, mainly in cases where the interview was conducted by the Greek Asylum Service (GAS). Specifically, concerns were raised about the use of unsuitable communication methods and questions related to past experience of harm and/or persecution which included closed questions impeding a proper follow-up, no opportunity to explain the case in the applicant’s own words, failure to consider factors that are likely to distort the applicant’s ability to express him or herself properly (such as mental health issues or prior trauma and/or illiteracy), lack of clarification with regard to vague or ambiguous concepts mentioned by the interviewer, potential inconsistencies or misunderstandings regarding critical aspects of the case that could lead to confusion and/or the inability of the applicant to express him or herself effectively, and more generally, violations of the right to be heard. Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the use of unsuitable methods and questions, including unfriendly interview environment for a) the applicants’ age, in cases of alleged minors, and more generally, violations of the right to a child-friendly environment and procedure, b) gender-based violence (GBV) survivors^[34], and c) LGBTQI+ persons.^[35] In general, no individualised assessment of the specific profile and circumstances of the asylum applicant or gender-sensitive assessment was taking place.

Namely, results of a survey on treatment of LGBTQI+ asylum applicants in Greece within the context of the asylum procedure, based on interviews conducted in 2023, revealed use of prohibited and discriminatory questioning, questions related to sexual practice and questions based on stereotypical notions during the asylum interview by the caseworkers, and a lack of caseworkers’ competence in assessing LGBTQI+ claims and failure to align with the DSSH (Difference, Shame, Stigma, Harm) model provided by the EUAA.^[36]

Illustrative of the above is the reasoning of a negative decision issued by Kos RAO, for an asylum applicant with, inter alia, a homosexuality claim and represented by GCR:^[37]

For instance, the applicant could not elaborate on the process and the way in which he became aware of his sexual orientation, saying that this happened after an incident of rape when he was [x – minor] years old. […] The applicant gives almost no information about this [rape] incident. When next asked how he felt about his realisation of his sexual orientation, he was content to answer that he accepted it while others did not. One would expect that since it was an internal process, and indeed something that would cause him trouble in his own country, he would be able to give more details about how he experienced it and his feelings and even give more information about how he became aware of it. Finally, when asked whether he knew about LGBTI organisations in his country or about the law on homosexuality in his country, the applicant replied negatively. One would expect him to be aware of such organisations or even the law since he stated that from X to X he became aware of his sexual orientation and externalised his feelings, a reason which played a decisive role in the applicant’s decision to leave the country. In a more general assessment, these allegations of the applicant are considered to be incoherent and general and as a result, the Service finds that the internal credibility of the above allegation has not been established.

The above reasoning of the first instance negative decision is indicative of the problematic, judgmental and non-sensitive approach and credibility assessment of the Asylum Service with regard to LGBTQI persons and GBV survivors.

Similarly illustrative is the reasoning of a negative decision issued by Kos RAO on September 2024 for an asylum applicant with, inter alia, a homosexuality claim, legally represented by GCR:[38] According to the decision.

‘[t]he applicant made vague and general statements regarding the time and circumstances under which he realized he was homosexual. He also spoke vaguely about the romantic relationship he claimed to have had with someone of the same sex. Furthermore, his descriptions were sparse concerning his feelings and the way he experienced his sexuality, lacking any truly personal or experiential details about his sexual orientation. In this context, the applicant did not provide a clear, detailed, and sufficient account of fundamental aspects related to this significant claim. Regarding when he first realized he was homosexual, the applicant vaguely stated: “From when we were in his room watching pornographic movies together, we felt it.” (See interview transcript, p. 16). Similarly, his responses to subsequent questions posed by the interviewer did not reflect the narrative of someone recounting personal and experiential changes upon realizing their sexual orientation. When asked about the change in his life after realizing he was homosexual, the applicant vaguely responded: “Yes,” and “I feel that I am different from other males.” (See interview transcript, p. 17). At another point in the interview, the applicant was again asked to describe his feelings and whether he feared how society would perceive him if it became known that he was homosexual. The applicant vaguely stated: Lawyer: “What feelings or thoughts crossed your mind when you realized you liked boys? Were you afraid of how people would treat you?” Applicant: “I am not afraid.” Lawyer: “How can you not be afraid when you’ve been telling us all along that it is illegal in Iraq?” Applicant: “Yes, it is forbidden, but I don’t need to tell anyone that I am homosexual.” (See interview transcript, p. 23). When asked if he knew other homosexual people in his country or if he tried to meet them, the applicant responded in a manner that did not reflect personal experiences, providing information from the internet and social media. The applicant vaguely stated: “Do you know if there are areas, cafés, or other establishments in your city where people attracted to the same sex gather? “No, it is forbidden in Iraq; if they find any homosexual, they kill them.” (See interview transcript, p. 17). Do you know other homosexual people in your country? “[the applicant gives a name] if you search that name on the internet, you’ll find him. He was homosexual, and they killed him.”   
Did you personally know [name]?          
“Yes.

””How did you know him?          
“Through social media.”
“Have you ever met other homosexual people in your country, aside from those
 already mentioned? ”No.” (See interview transcript, p. 18).

When asked about the legislation in his country regarding homosexuality, the applicant could not provide any information, even though it directly impacts his life. The applicant vaguely stated: “I have forgotten; you can search on Google.” (See interview transcript, p. 19). When asked to describe the incident during which his relationship with his partner became known on the night of June 20, 2024, his account was brief and appeared to lack the perspective of someone with genuine personal experiences. The applicant vaguely stated: “As I told you before, I had been intimate with my boyfriend. Suddenly, his brother opened the door and called his father. I dressed quickly and jumped out the window. His father started shooting at my feet to make me fall, but I managed to escape. I then took a taxi and went home.” (See interview transcript, p. 19).

Τhe above reasoning of the first instance negative decision is indicative of the problematic, judgmental and non-sensitive approach and credibility assessment of the Asylum Service with regard to LGBTQI persons and GBV survivors. This decision was annulled by the Appeals Authority and the applicant was granted refugee status.

Moreover, in 2024 and 2025  a significant number of asylum applicants continued to report that, during their interview, they were not granted sufficient time and, as a result, their asylum claims were not examined thoroughly. The duration of an interview can be easily verified in the interview transcript, which mentions the time of intitiation as well as time of conclusion of an interview.

An additional issue relates to the fact that the caseworkers do not follow a standard procedure on the examination of allegations of pushbacks when such allegations arise during the asylum interview. Particularly, the RAOs had no consistent practice regarding any further examination of allegations of pushbacks that arise during the asylum interview. The caseworkers had discretion as to whether to devote time during the interview and ask further questions regarding the reported “pushback” incident by the asylum applicant. According to lawyers, in certain cases the caseworkers disregard these allegations, claiming that they are not relevant to the interview, while other caseworkers proceed to further investigate the incidents by asking focused questions.

Furthermore, it is still unclear how the EUAA caseworkers deal with information about criminal acts and violations of EU and international law allegedly committed by other actors at the EU’s external borders that are brought to their attention during the asylum interview.

The new EUAA Complaints Mechanism as regards complaints against EUAA personnel has been recently established under the responsibility of the newly appointed EUAA Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO).^[39] However, complaints can only be submitted by persons directly affected (or their representatives) by the actions of asylum support team members, when they consider that their fundamental rights have been violated due to an EUAA expert’s actions.^[40] This is stipulated in the EUAA Regulation in such wording and the scope for the Complaints Mechanism can therefore not be broadened to include other instances of violations. For any other violations of fundamental rights not committed by members in Asylum Support Teams (ASTs), the EUAA is working in parallel on developing an escalation mechanism which would allow for an appropriate escalation process for situations when Agency staff becomes aware of any serious violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations committed by a host Member State.[41]

Appeal

A total of 12,552 appeals against decisions in the asylum procedure were lodged in 2025. Of these, 12,129 were lodged on the mainland and the remaining (423) on the islands.[42] Main countries of origin for these appeals in 2025 were Egypt (36.4%), Bangladesh (10.2%), Pakistan (7.1%), Nepal (5.5%) and Sierra Leone (5.4%).[43]

Changes in the Appeals Committees

As noted in the Regular procedure – Appeal, Article 148 Asylum Code^[44] provides that the Appeals Committees under the Independent Appeals Authority, comprised of administrative judges, may operate in a single or three-member composition.

On 3 December 2024, the Greek Council of State declared that the single composition of the Independent Appeals Committees in asylum procedures is unconstitutional (against Article 89 (2) of the Constitution).[45]

Decision No. 1150/2025 of the Plenary Session of the Council of State on June 26, 2025, declared the provision establishing Single-Judge Appeals Committees to be unconstitutional as contrary to Article 89 of the Constitution. The Court ruled by a majority that Article 89(2) of the Constitution does not permit the assignment to a judicial officer of the duties of a single-member administrative body, even if that body exercises powers of a disciplinary, supervisory, or adjudicatory nature. Consequently, the provision of Article 5(7) of Law 4375/2016, as that article was replaced by Article 116(2) of Law 4636/ 2019 and that paragraph was reworded by Article 30(2) of Law 4686/2020, is unconstitutional to the extent that it provides that the Independent Appeals Committees may operate with a single-member composition.

Additionaly, the Court, taking into account the large number of negative decisions on applications for international protection that have been rendered by single-member Independent Appeals Committees and the difficulties the Administration will face due to the actual situation arising from the retroactive nature of the found unconstitutionality, ruled that the consequences of the unconstitutionality shall take effect as of the day prior to the publication of this decision. Specifically, from the day prior to the publication of the decision onwards, administrative appeals filed against decisions of the Asylum Service may not be heard by single-member Independent Appeals Committees.

The above decision was published on June 26, 2025.; Consequently, the consequences of unconstitutionality, and specifically that (Note 12 of the Decision) “Article 89(2) of the Constitution does not permit the assignment to a judicial officer of the duties of a single-member administrative body” took effect on 25 June 2025, the date from which, according to the Plenary Session of the Council of State, the hearing of administrative appeals by a single-member panel is prohibited.

Appeal Committees interpreted the decision as allowing them to proceed with the hearing even after 25 June, and that the unconstitutionality refers only to the cases that the appeal will be filed after 25 June. As a result, several cases that were appointed to Single Member Committees were decided by the Single Member even after 25 June.

GCR represented before the administrative court of Athens the case of a young afghan whose case was decided and rejected from a Single- Judge Committee while the hearing took place after the 25^th of June. The application for annulment is still pending, nonetheless the application for postponement of the execution of the decision and thus his return was granted the Court accepting the argument of the applicant that the decision has been in violation of the constitution as prescribed by the decision of the CoS and thus the application is evidently well founded.[46] On the other hand, the Administrative Court of Thessaloniki in a similar case, did not considered that the fact that the hearing  took place after the 25^th renders the application evidently well founded.  The constitutionality of the negative decision according to the Court is matter to be resolved by the Court of Annulment since the matter of its effect is not clear or well decided upon[47]

Mention should be made that pending the decision of the CoS, all annulment cases pending before the competent administrative courts concerning Single Judge decisions have been postponed repeatedly over the year awaiting the CoS to resolve on the issue. Nonetheless, even after the decision, the Courts continue to postpone hearings.[48]

Additionally, the above mentioned decision also affects subsequent applications (see Subsequent applications), since a single judge was also responsible for deciding upon appeals on first instance admissibility rejections of such applications.

Rules and time limits for appeal

Similar to the first instance fast-track border procedure, truncated time limits are also foreseen in the appeal stage. In particular, the deadline for appealing a negative decision is 10 days, instead of the 30 days deadline foreseen in the regular procedure.^[49] The Appeals Committee examining the appeal must make a decision within seven days,^[50] contrary to 30 days in the regular procedure.^[51] In practice, this very short deadline is difficult for the Appeals Committees to meet, and raises serious concerns over the quality of the decisions issued.

The average time (in days) for the issuance of 2^nd instance decisions was 89 days from lodging the lodging and 51 days from its discussion.[52] As a rule, the procedure before the Appeals Committees must be written, based on the examination of the dossier, except from cases, provided by the Article 102(3) Asylum Code, where the Appeals Committee decides to call for an oral hearing.^[53]

As far as the appeal procedure is concerned, in addition to the concerns related to the admissibility of appeals in general (see Regular Procedure), it shall be noted that it is practically impossible for the applicants to submit an appeal on their own, i.e., without legal aid. Specifically, Article 98 of the Asylum Code requires, for the appeal to be admissible, inter alia, reference and development of specified reasons for the appeal. At the same time, the negative decisions are served to the applicants in Greek, and though a simplified text in a language the applicant is expected to understand is served as an accompanying document, this text only provides generic information on the rejection/does not explain the precise reasons for which the application has been rejected, therefore making it impossible for them to read and be aware of the exact reasons for which their asylum application has been rejected. It is evident that, without legal, aid applicants cannot adequately articulate the legal and factual grounds on which their appeals are based, particularly taking into consideration the requirement that such appeals be submitted in Greek.

The provisions of the Asylum Code relating to the fictitious service (πλασματική επίδοση) of first instance decisions are also applicable to the fast-track border procedure and thus the deadline for lodging an appeal against a first instance negative decision may expire without the applicant having been actually informed about the decision.^[54]

In 2024, asylum applicants in Kos, Lesvos, Samos and Chios, were invited in RAOs to sign a “declaration of e-mail address for communication with the asylum service”, in which, among other things, the applicant gives their e-mail address and confirms the following statement: ‘I wish this address to be used for my communication with the Asylum Service (information, appointment, service of decisions, etc. documents, etc.)’. The information on the above was provided to the applicants with the assistance of an interpreter.

By the end of 2025, providing the AS with an email has been a very well established practice (almost a prerequisite) for communicating with the AS and the Appeals Committee. GCR is aware of several cases of persons that have felt obliged to provide an email, even though they do not possessed one or knew how to use it.

Paragraph 3 of Article 87 Asylum Code stipulates that “The service of the decision to the applicant shall be carried out (….) or (c) by e-mail to an address indicated by the applicant to the Reception and Identification Service or the Asylum Service or to an address indicated by his/her attorney or authorized counsel or representative or (….). Paragraph 4 of the same article states that:

In case the applicant is a detainee or remains in Regional Reception and Identification Services or resides in Reception or Accommodation Centres, the rejection decision or the extract of the operative part of the decision granting international protection status and the accompanying explanatory document of the third part of paragraph 3 shall be sent by any appropriate means to the Head of the Centre or establishment or facility concerned, who shall ensure that a notice of receipt and the times of delivery and distribution of the documents to applicants are posted immediately for each working day and time, in conspicuous places in the premises, and shall draw up an acknowledgement of receipt and post it. Applicants shall ensure that they arrive at the centre within the hours of delivery and distribution of correspondence in order to be served with the relevant mail. A delivery report shall be drawn up for each delivery to the applicant. Service shall be deemed to have been affected after the expiry of three (3) days from the date on which relevant act of receipt referred to in the first subparagraph was drawn.

Taking into consideration the above legal provisions, the Greek Ombudsperson intervened with regard to the “Service of asylum decisions by e-mail to residents in the Kos CCAC”,^[55] and clarified that Article 87 Asylum Code clearly provides that the scope of application introduced by the legislator with paragraph 4 is more specific than that of paragraph 3, providing for the service of decisions on applicants who reside in the structures of the Reception and Identification Service (RIS), such as the CCACs. Namely, the Ombudsperson noted that the law does not allow the administration to derogate from the application of the provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 87, through the signing of declarations by residents that they will be served with the decisions by e-mail. Finally, it is crucial for the respect of the right to an effective remedy, in the event of non-application of the above provisions, the time limit for lodging an appeal to begin at least from the time when the applicant has demonstrably become aware of the decision.

During 2024, legal aid organisations continued to raise concerns over the problematic use of the service of asylum decisions by e-mail. More specifically, legal aid organisations operating in Lesvos observed that when decisions are notified by e-mail, only an informative text in Greek and English was included, while a text in the applicant’s native language was only included as an attachment at the end of the decision.[56] In this way, many people could not understand what the e-mail they received was about. Notifications by e-mail have been also sent to illiterate persons, as well as to persons residing in RIS accommodation. Additionally, the organisations observed that many asylum applicants were not aware of the formality of e-mail notification and how it affects deadlines.[57]

In Lesvos, Kos and Chios, since approximately the second quarter of 2022, an order for voluntary departure from the country – with a seven- or a 25-day deadline – was incorporated in the first instance negative decisions issued by the RAO.^[58] In practice, a seven-day deadline is given with the “rejected as inadmissible” – first instance negative decisions, while a 25-day deadline is given with the “rejected as unfounded” – first instance negative decisions. This practice continued in 2024.^[59] The voluntary departure order is provided by Article 22 paragraph 1 L.3907/2011, as it was amended by Article 3 L. 4825/2021.^[60]

Following the amendment of Article 83(3) Asylum Code, the obligation to present oneself before the Appeal Committees remains waived for the appellants who are either under geographical restriction or reside in a Reception/Accommodation facility. In case the appellant cannot be represented by a lawyer or another authorised person/ consultant, a certification shall be submitted before the Appeal Authority. More specifically, for the appellants who reside in a Reception/Accommodation facility, a residence certification shall be issued in writing by the Director of the Reception/Accommodation facility, upon request by the appellant. This request should not be filed earlier than 3 days before the date of examination of the appeal. This certification confirms that the appellant resided in the facility on the day that the application for the certificate was filed. Appellants, against whom a geographical restriction is imposed must submit a written certification issued by the Police or a Citizens’ Service Centre (ΚΕΠ) located at the area of the geographical restriction by the day before the examination of their appeal, confirming that they presented themselves before said authorities. The application for such a certificate must not be filed longer than two days before the date of the appeal’s examination. In case the appellant does not submit the aforementioned certification, it is presumed that they have implicitly revoked their appeal according to Article 86 of Asylum Code.

Moreover, in case of force majeure, such as serious illness, serious physical disability or the case of an insurmountable impediment that made the in-person appearance of the appellant impossible, the obligation for the in-person appearance is suspended throughout the duration of the force majeure.^[61] In these cases, the appellant needs to submit a relevant application, and invoke in a particular manner the incidents that constitute force majeure or unsurmountable impediment that made their appearance in- person impossible; the allegation needs to be proved with written documents and relevant certifications or certificates from a public service. In case the reasons constituting force majeure or insurmountable impediment are proven and under the condition that the appellant appears before the competent authorities, the consequences of the non-appearance are lifted.

However, it has been noted that for a considerable period following the above amendment, the information provided to the appellants by the RAOs regarding the issuance and submission of the residence certificates before the Appeals Authority was not accurate. Indeed, the written information provided within the ‘Document – Proof of Submission of the Appeal’^[62] explicitly stated that appellants are obliged to submit a residence certificate before the Appeals Authority up to the day before the examination of their appeal. No mention was made of the obligation to apply for the certificate no earlier than three days before the date of examination of the appeal. As a result, in several cases, appellants had submitted outdated residence certificates before the Appeals Authority, and, subsequently, in some of these cases, appeals were rejected by the Appeals Committee (with no examination either of the admissibility or the merits of the asylum applications) on the grounds of the submission of an out-of-date residence certificate by the Head of the RIC. GCR has introduced cases such as these before the Greek administrative courts. In May 2023, the Administrative Court of Athens annulled the decision of the 2^nd Appeals Committee that had rejected an applicant’s appeal on the grounds of the submission of an out-of-date residence certificate.^[63] In March 2025, in a case legally represented by GCR, another application for annulment was discussed before the Administrative Court against a decision of an Appeals Committee that had rejected the appeals of a Syrian family on the grounds of the submission of an out-of-date residence certificate; the decision is still pending.^[64]

Similarly, to the concerns raised under the Regular procedure as regards the severity of these new procedural requirements, serious concerns with regard to the effectiveness of the remedy and the risk of a violation of the principle of non-refoulement are also applicable to appeals in the context of fast-track border procedures.

Suspensive effect

Appeals before the Appeals Committees no longer have automatic suspensive effect as a general rule. The automatic suspensive effect of appeals depends on the type of decision challenged by the applicant (see Admissibility Procedure: Appeal and Accelerated Procedure: Appeal). With regard to applications rejected at first instance within the framework of the fast-track border procedure, the Asylum Code states, that a derogation from automatic suspensive effect of appeals can only be ordered provided that the individual benefits from the necessary assistance of an interpreter, legal assistance and at least one week to prepare and file a relevant application before the Appeals Committee reasoning why they should be granted with the right to remain in the Greek territory.^[65]

It should be noted that Article 110(3) Asylum Code has incorrectly transposed Art 46(7) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive. Instead of cross-referring to Article 110(2) Asylum Code on the categories of appeals stripped of automatic suspensive effect, Article 110(3) Asylum Code provides that “the possibility to derogate from the right to remain” may be applied in border procedures subject to requirements including interpretation, legal assistance and at least one week. Accordingly, the law incorrectly suggests that the derogation from the right to remain on the territory may be imposed in any decision taken in a border procedure, insofar as the above guarantees are complied with in practice in 2024, the derogation from the right to remain has been generally applied to the fast-track border procedure on the Eastern Aegean islands, including in “safe third country” cases which should have suspensive appeals according to the law.^[66] In any case, as it has been already mentioned, where a separate application for suspension of removal is submitted in parallel with the appeal, the Appeals Committees proceed with the examination of the suspension application on the same day that the appeal is being examined.

Judicial review

The general provisions regarding judicial review, as amended in 2018 and 2019, are also applicable under the fast-track border procedure, as are concerns raised with regard to the effectiveness of the remedy (see Regular Procedure: Appeal).An application for annulment before the Administrative Court does not have automatic suspensive effect, even if combined with an application for suspension. Suspensive effect is only granted by a relevant decision of the Court. This judicial procedure before the Administrative Courts is not accessible to asylum applicants without legal representation.

According to practice, individuals whose appeals are rejected within the framework of the fast-track border procedure might be immediately detained upon notification of their second instance negative decision. In the past, and in particular until March 2020, this would mean that they would be at imminent risk of readmission to Türkiye. However, since readmissions remain frozen for the last three years, the detention of people with a second negative decision serves no purpose whatsoever and is considered a disproportionate measure, according to several Administrative Courts’ decisions that upheld the “objections to detention” and ordered the detention to be lifted (see the Chapter on Detention).

In general, in 2024 and 2025 the Asylum Service registered subsequent asylum applications despite pending applications for annulment before the Administrative Court; both procedures can run in parallel.

Concerns regarding the effective access to judicial review for appellants whose appeal has been rejected within the framework of the fast-track border procedure, i.e., who remain under a geographical restriction on the Aegean Islands or are detained on the Aegean Islands following the notification of the second instance decision, were not solved by the new Asylum Code, as the relevant Article 115(2) IPA remains in force.^[67] More specifically, Article 115(2) IPA foresees that the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens is the competent Court for submitting legal remedies against second instance negative decisions of applications submitted on the Aegean islands. Thus, legal remedies of appellants who reside or are detained on the Aegean Islands, should be submitted by a lawyer before the Administrative Court of Athens. Considering the geographical distance and the practical obstacles (e.g., to appoint a lawyer able to submit the legal remedy in Athens), the possibility to submit legal remedies remains virtually inaccessible for most applicants.^[68] Furthermore, applicants have to provide a notarised power of attorney in order to appoint a legal representative, which costs approximately 100 euros depending on the notary’s fee. However, legal aid actors on the islands mention as a further impediment in the overall procedure, that most of the notaries operating on the islands refuse to provide the necessary services to the asylum applicants. This is a serious obstacle to the submission of legal remedies, especially for rejected applicants under geographical limitation on their island of arrival.

Given the constraints that individuals geographically restricted or detained in the Aegean Islands face vis-à-vis access to legal assistance, the fact that legal aid is not foreseen by law at this stage and that annulment applications can only be submitted by a lawyer, access to judicial review for applicants receiving a second instance negative decision within the framework of the fast-track border procedure is severely hindered.

Legal assistance

The Asylum Code does not contain special provisions regarding free legal assistance in the fast-track border procedure. The general provisions and practical hurdles regarding legal aid are also applicable in this case (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).

State-funded legal aid is not provided for the fast-track border procedure at first instance. Therefore, legal assistance at first instance is made available only by NGOs based on capacity and areas of operation, while the scope of these services remains severely limited, bearing in mind the number of applicants subject to the fast-track border procedure.

In September 2023, the Athens Bar Association issued an opinion, clarifying that lawyers providing legal advice and assistance to persons arriving in Greece and wishing to apply for international protection – as well as interpreters used to enable communication – can in no way be construed as facilitating irregular entry or stay, in line with CJEU case law.^[69] The opinion also pointed out that communication with such parties is covered by client-attorney privilege under lex specialis provisions of the Lawyers’ Code of Conduct.^[70]

From 16 February 2021 to date, and according to the final lists of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum concerning the Registry of the lawyers providing legal assistance to asylum applicants at the second instance, 24 lawyers were appointed on the islands. These lawyers have been appointed to provide free legal aid under the State-funded legal aid scheme at second instance as follows: 12 lawyers on Lesvos, 2 lawyers on Samos, 4 lawyers on Chios, 2 lawyers on Kos, 2 lawyers on Rhodes, and 2 lawyers on Leros.^[71] Based on legal actors’ observations, including GCR, however, there were usually not that many lawyers operational, due to administrative obstacles and issues. Additionally, lawyers appointed on the islands do not necessarily reside on the islands. Most of the times, the meetings between asylum applicants and lawyers were made through phone or video-call and not with physical presence.

Since June 2020, by decision of the administration of the Central Asylum Service, there has been a “[p]rovision of legal assistance through video conference to the Regional Asylum Services of Leros, Samos, Chios and Lesvos due to increased needs in the provision of legal aid services in the second degree to applicants for international protection”. As a result, some asylum applicants reported communication issues with their State-registered lawyers and the short duration of their preparation meetings.

In 2025, the total number of appeals lodged in Greece against first instance negative decisions was 12,552, of which only 423 were lodged before the islands’ RAOs and the rest 12,129 in the mainland’s RAOs.^[72] There are no available statistics with regard to the number of cases for which free legal assistance from Registry Lawyers was requested in the Eastern Aegean Islands’ RAOs.

As also mentioned in the Regular Procedure: Legal assistance no tailored State-funded free legal aid scheme exists for submitting judicial remedies before Courts against a second instance negative decision.

[1] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp Table 7b.

[2] GCR, Submission of the Greek Council for Refugees to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium & Greece (Appl. No 30696/09) and related case, 9 May 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2XYhHpj.

[3] Ertnews, Συνεχίζεται η μεταφορά προσφύγων από Ρόδο προς τις δομές Κω και Λέρου – Πάνω από 4.000 οι φιλοξενούμενοι, 22 September 2023, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/3ykvddaa.

[4]  Information obtained by the LWG partners and GCR, during the year 2024.

[5] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overviews for January to, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp Table 7b.

[6] Joint Ministerial Decision for the application of the provisions of par. 3 and 5 of Article 90 of IPA, No 15996/30.12.2020, Gov. Gazette 5948/B/31.12.2020.

[7] FRA, Update of the 2016 FRA Opinion on fundamental rights in the hotspots set up in Greece and Italy, 5 March 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2HeRg79, p. 26.

[8] For more, see relevant AIDA reports on Greece, available here.

[9] Fenix, Fenix calls the Greek authorities to examine the merits of asylum applications rejected on admissibility, 6 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3wUxsyN.

[10] MoMA, Report A December 2024 Reception Asylum & Integration Procedures, available in Greek here, 18.

[11] MoMA, Δεν υπάρχει θέμα μαζικών επιστροφών – Αν καταργηθεί το πνεύμα του Συμφώνου Μετανάστευσης στην ουσία θα καταργηθεί η Ευρώπη, 20 September 2024.

[12] Information obtained during Lesvos LAsWG meetings.

[13] Information acquired during Lesvos LAsWG meeting of 28- November 2023.

[14] Information acquired during Lesvos LAsWG meeting, 28 November 2023.

[15] Information acquired during Athens LAsWG meetings, 2023.

[16] See for example Decision 18695/2023 issued by 21^st Appeals Committee concerning the case of an asylum applicant from Ghana; a summary of the decision is available in Greek in GCR, HIAS, RSA et al, Issue 2/2023 of the Greek Asylum Case Law Report, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yn6yb77u.

[17] Greens/EFA, The EU-Türkiye Statement and the Greek Hotspots: A failed European Pilot Project in Refugee Policy, June 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2sJM2H4, p. 17.

[18] Information provided by Lesvos RAO, January 2025.

[19] According to Article 95 paragraph 2 of Asylum Code: “If no decision is taken within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of filing the application, the applicant shall be allowed to enter and remain within the country in order to have his/her application examined, in accordance with the other provisions of this Code.”

[20] Information provided by the LWG of Kos throughout the year 2024.

[21] Article 95(3)(b) Asylum Code.

[22] Amnesty International, Submission on the proposed changes to the Greek Law on international protection, 24 October 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3oxyL5k.

[23] See, e.g., EASO, 2020 Operational & Technical Assistance Plan to Greece, 20 December 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3Qhm0X3 p. 14.

[24] EASO, Operating Plan to Greece 2022-2024, 9 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3uMYh9q, pp. 20-21.

[25] EUAA, Operational plan 2025 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Greece, https://tinyurl.com/2suajtdc   p 9

[26] Articles 60(4)(b) L 4375/2016 and 90(3)(b) only refer to the conduct of interviews by EASO staff.

[27] AIRE Centre, et al., Third party intervention in J.B. v. Greece, 4 October 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/2qSRxoU, pp. 10-11.

[28] Information acquired during Lesvos Legal Aid Working Group meeting, 3 September 2024.

[29] Minutes of Legal Aid Sub Working Group Meeting, 26 March 2024.

[30] For this issue, Lesvos LAsWG has addressed a letter to Lesvos RAO Administration, 5 December 2023.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Information acquired during the Lesvos LAsWG meeting, 23 January 2024.

[33] See AIDA, Country Report Greece, 2021 Update, p. 100, https://bit.ly/3IAjhVm.

[34]  See Fenix, A GENDERED GAZE ON MIGRATION: Report on sexual and gender-based violence in the context of the Greek asylum policy on Lesvos, February 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mk7kmp7t.

[35] Heinrich Boll Stiftung, LGBTQI+ Asylum Seekers in Greece, 8 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5hfsamd5.

[36] Heinrich Boll Stiftung, ibid.

[37] More information available on the applicant’s case file, with GCR.

[38]  More information available on the applicant’s case file, with GCR.

[39] See: https://euaa.europa.eu/complaints-mechanism.

[40] Ibid.

[41] EUAA, Management Board Decision No 166 of 25 September 2024 on the Fundamental Rights Strategy 2024-2028, available here.

[42] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overviews for January to, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 9a.

[43] Ibid. Table 9b.

[44] Previously Article 116 IPA.

[45] Greek Council of State, Announcement of 3^rd December 2024 by the President of the Council of State, available here.

[46] Decision and file of the case with the author.

[47] Decision also with the author

[48] Case files with the author.

[49] Article 95(3)(c) Asylum Code.

[50] Article 95(3)(c) Asylum Code.

[51] Article 106(1)(a) Asylum Code.

[52] MoMA, Report A December 2024 Appendix A, available here.

[53] Article 102(3) Asylum Code.

[54] Article 87 and 108 Asylum Code.

[55] The Intervention of the Greek Ombudsman (no. 346822/2413/16-01-2024) following a legal NGO’s report was shared within the context of the Athens Legal Aid Working Group, 23 January 2024.

[56] Information acquired during the Lesvos LAsWG meeting, 29 October 2024.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Information acquired during the Lesvos LAsWG meeting, 28 June 2022, from the GCR lawyer based in Kos, and during GCR mission to Chios and visits to Chios RAO and Police Station, 24-26 May 2022.

[59]  Information acquired from the GCR lawyers based in Lesvos and Kos, and during GCR mission to Chios, 30-31 January 2024.

[60] “1. The decision to return the third-country national may provide for a period of time for his/her voluntary departure, which shall be between seven (7) and twenty-five (25) days, subject to paragraphs. 2 and 4.”

[61] Article 83 paragraph 4 Asylum Code.

[62]  The Document – Proof of Submission of the Appeal is given to the applicant by the RAO personnel immediately after his/her appeal is lodged.

[63] Decision No ΑΔ940/31-5-2023 issued by the Administrative Court of Athens.

[64] Application for Annulment no. ΑΚ687/2020, Administrative Court of Athens.

[65] Article 110(3) Asylum Code.

[66]  According to input provided by RSA.

[67] Article 148(a) Asylum Code.

[68] See mutandis mutandis ECHR, Kaak v. Greece, Application No 34215/16, Judgement of 3 October 2019.

[69 Bar Association of Athens, Opinion No. 143, 11 September 2023. For more information in English, see ELENA, Greece: Athens Bar Association’s interpretation of the Greek Bar Code on guaranteeing the lawyer-asylum applicant relationship without criminalisation, 12 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3Ja4TCL.

[70] Ibid.

[71] MoMA, Decision No 1836/21, 16 February 2021.

MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp, table 9a