Regular procedure

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

General (scope, time limits)

According to data published by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum (MoMA),[2] a total of 55,381 (first time) applications for asylum were lodged before the Asylum Service in 2025, a decrease of 19.74% compared to the 69,000 (first time) applications lodged in 2024.^[3]

According to Article 88(3) Asylum Code, an asylum application should be examined “the soonest possible” and, in any case, within six months of lodging, in the context of the regular procedure. This time limit may be extended for a period not exceeding three months, in cases where a large number of third-country nationals or stateless persons simultaneously apply for international protection. In any event, as per the same article, the examination of the application should not exceed 21 months.

Where no decision is issued within the maximum time limit fixed in each case, the asylum applicant has the right to request information from the Asylum Service on the timeframe within which a decision is expected to be issued. As expressly foreseen in the Asylum Code, ‘this does not establish an obligation on the part of the Asylum Service to issue a decision within a specific deadline’.^[4]

Applicants who are recognised as refugees are given only an excerpt of the relevant decision, which does not include the decision’s reasoning. According to the Asylum Code, in order for the entire decision to be delivered to the individual recognised as a beneficiary of international protection, a special legitimate interest (ειδικό έννομο συμφέρον) must be proven.^[5]

Duration of procedures

The extent to which delays in the procedure observed in the previous years are still pertinent in 2025 is not possible to assess, as data on the duration of the procedure at first instance is not published by the MoMA, nor was it provided following GCR’s relevant request for information.

That being said, ongoing delays of months and in some cases of even more than a year in the conduct of asylum interviews on account of gaps in the provision of interpretations services were reported in Malakasa RIC and Ritsona camp as well as most Regional Asylum Offices and Asylum Units in mainland Greece in 2024 and 2025. The same gaps also impacted on applicants’ ability to communicate their needs with the camp’s and the asylum service’s staff.^[6]

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing 

The Asylum Code sets out two forms of prioritised examination of asylum applications.

Firstly, the Asylum Service shall process “by way of absolute priority”, claims concerning:

• Applicants undergoing reception and identification procedures who do not comply with an order to be transferred to another reception facility, if their non-compliance hinders the smooth completion of the examination procedure;^[7]
• Applicants who are detained.^[8]

In accordance with Articles 46(c) and 50(8) Asylum Code, processing by way of “absolute priority” means the examination procedure needs to be concluded within 20 days, albeit Articles 42(γα) and 88(7) Asylum Code, both of which cite the preceding articles, mention a 15-day deadline for the same purpose, highlighting an inconsistency in the law.

Secondly, the law provides that an application may be registered and examined by way of priority for persons who:^[9]

• Belong to vulnerable groups, insofar as they are under a “restriction of liberty” measure in the context of Reception and Identification procedures;
• Fall under the scope of the Border Procedure;
• Are likely to fall within the Dublin Procedure;
• Have cases which may be considered as manifestly unfounded;
• Represent a threat to national security or public order; or
• File a Subsequent Application;
• Come from a First Country of Asylum or a Safe Third Country;
• Have cases reasonably believed to be well-founded.

From 2014 up until the first half of 2021, Syrians and stateless persons were eligible to a fast-track procedure examining their cases and often resulting in the granting of refugee status. This also applied to those who formerly resided in Syria who could provide original documents such as passports, or who had been identified as Syrians/persons with a former residence in Syria within the scope of the Reception and Identification Procedure, provided that the EU-Türkiye Statement and the fast-track border procedure did not apply in their cases.^[10] The specific fast-track procedure (examination in the merits) is still applicable to this day, though admissibility proceedings may precede it.

However, since December 2021, pursuant to Joint Ministerial Decision 458568/2021 and the subsequent relevant JMDs designating Türkiye as a safe third country for applicants from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia,^[11] applications by these nationalities are firstly channelled through the admissibility procedure to assess whether Türkiye is a safe third country for them or if their cases are admissible and should therefore be examined on the merits (for more details, see also Safe Third Country).

Personal interview

According to the Asylum Code, the personal interview with the applicant may be omitted where:^[12]

• The Asylum Service is able to issue a positive decision on the basis of available evidence.
• It is not practically feasible, in particular when the applicant is declared by a medical professional as unfit or unable to be interviewed due to enduring circumstances beyond their control.

Moreover, the law foresees that when the applicant is not in a position to continue the interview for reasons attributable to them, “the interview is concluded”. In this case, the applicant is provided with the opportunity to submit a written memo and supplementary evidence within five days.^[13] According to the Asylum Code, the omission of a personal interview does not adversely affect the in-merits decision on the application, in which the reasons for omitting the interview should be stated.^[14]

The Asylum Code further provides that, where the interview has been scheduled within 15 days from the lodging of the application and where the applicant is vulnerable, the authorities provide them with reasonable time not exceeding three days to prepare for the interview and obtain counselling. The possibility to request reasonable time is not granted to asylum applicants who are not vulnerable or whose interview has been scheduled more than 15 days after the lodging of the application.^[15]

Under the regular procedure, the interview takes place at the premises of the RAO or remotely, with applicants remaining at the Camp they reside on the designated day, and is conducted by one caseworker, who can be physically present or connect remotely. The personal interview of adult asylum applicants takes place without the presence of the applicant’s family members, unless the competent Asylum Service handler considers their presence necessary.^[16] Moreover, the personal interview must take place under conditions that ensure confidentiality.^[17]

The person conducting the interviews should be sufficiently qualified to take into account the personal or general circumstances regarding the application, including the applicant’s cultural background. In particular, the interviewer must be trained on the special needs of women, children and victims of violence and torture.^[18] In case of female applicants, the applicant can request a case worker/interpreter of the same sex. If this is not possible, a note is added to the transcript of the interview.^[19]

The EUAA’s role in the regular procedure

In 2025, the number of interviews carried out by EUAA caseworkers in Greece increased once more, with interviews in the asylum cases of 13,886 applicants compared to 11,973 in 2024. Of these, 85% related to the same 10 citizenships, in particular Afghans (3,680), Syrians (2,096), Egyptians (1,305), Sudanese (1,289), Somalis (1,139), Nepalis (614), Sierra Leoneans (580), Yemenis (478), Palestinians (345), and stateless persons (321).[20]

The number of concluding remarks issued by EUAA was 604 in 2025, a decrease from 972 in 2024.[21] Concluding remarks by the EUAA in 2025 mostly concerned Egyptians (197), Sierra Leoneans (113), stateless persons (45), Sudanese (34) and Guineans (31).[22]

Interviews conducted through videoconferencing

In GCR’s experience, interviews continued to be conducted through video conferencing in 2025, with either the interviewer or interpreter (or both) participating through digital means. This was particularly the case for applicants residing in mainland camps, who were interviewed without having to leave the camp, as well as in certain RAOs with certain interviewers being based in other RAOs. There have also been some cases where the interview was conducted remotely by phone rather than through video conferencing.

At the beginning of the interview, the caseworker requests the applicant’s consent for the use of videoconferencing to carry out the interview. The applicant consent is given orally and is recorded in the audio recording of the interview and in the written transcript. However, in GCR’s experience, applicants are not informed about possible consequences in case of refusal to use digital tools, such as rescheduling the interview at a later date. Other issues arising from the use of digital tools include technical issues, such as poor internet connection and inadequate sound quality. Even under ideal conditions, video conferencing may negatively affect the quality of the interpretation and possibly the interview due to the loss of non-verbal communication cues.

Recognition rates, quality of interviews and decisions

The Asylum Service issued a total of 41,667 in-merit decisions during 2025, of which 8,328 concerned the accelerated procedure.^[23]

Source: MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 8a.

While recognition rates at first instance remain high (in terms of in-merit decisions), a number of first instance cases demonstrate the persistence of long-standing concerns vis-à-vis the “deterioration in quality at first instance”, inter alia due to the way in which interviews were conducted, the assessment of the asylum claims and/or the decisions delivered.”^[24] There also seems to be a new evaluation of the situation prevailing with regard to Syria and Afghanistan, so that during 2025, the first rejections of international protection (refugee status as well as subsidiary protection) from persons of Syrian and Afghan nationality occurred.

Regarding interviews, GCR is aware of several cases of persons that have been through their interview by a case worker appointed to a different RAO/AU responsible for the lodging application and later on a third asylum office, namely AU Nikaias, was called to access the interview and issue the decision. The practice was noticed primarily in persons residing in camps out of Attica, the interview was conducted remotely by a case worker situated in a completely different area and then the file passed on to a different authority.  While the lodging of the application was at AU for international protection (Fast Track- regular procedure), the interview was conducted by persons appointed to RIC Malakasa while the case was referred afterwards to AU Nikaias for decision. The particular situation has proven to cause extreme delays since despite referral to the authority the case was pending the appointment of a case worker for months. The interview was conducted in July 2025 but the decision was still pending by the time of the writing this report.[25] Long waiting and extreme delays is issuancing decisions has been noted repeatedly by the end of the year especially with regard to cases of Arabic-speaking population.

Examples of such cases in 2025 include:

• The case of a young single man from Syria, of kurdish origin, whose application was rejected after it was found at the first instance that the situation in his country of origin does not indicate that he would face such a degree of hardship or danger upon his return meriting international protection ^[26]
• The case of a single man from Egypt, who was interviewed a year after surviving the deadly shipwreck of Pylos in June 2025. By the end of the year the decisions on his case was not issued.[27]
• The case of a single-mother of two, survivor of SGBV from Togo. Her interview had been postponed several times since 2024 and all through 2025.[28]
• The case of a couple from Syria extremely vulnerable due to health issues. The interview was conducted by the end of July 2025. No decision was issued by the end of the year or early 2026. [29]

Interpretation

The law envisages that interpretation is provided to applicants both during the registration of their asylum request as well as during their interview at first and second instance.^[30] In case interpretation in the language of the choice of the applicant is unavailable, interpretation is provided in the official language of the country of origin or in a language that the applicant may reasonably be expected to understand.^[31]

The Asylum Service uses interpreters in all dealings with the applicants, including the individual interviews. There is no relevant provision for the presence of cultural mediators. The Asylum Code does not include a provision for a specific training or guideline for interpreters.

Interpretation for registrations of asylum requests, as well as interviews before the authorities is provided both by interpreters of the NGO METAdrasi and EUAA interpreters, yet challenges continued to be reported in 2025.

On 14 May 2024, METAdrasi announced that following the cessation of the provision of interpretation services in the asylum procedures on 6 May, it would also move forward with the cessation of interpretation services throughout Greece’s camps, on account of the expiration and delays in the timely renewal of the contracts it had signed with the MoMA, while once more noting that it had yet to receive due payments for the services provided by its interpreters in the previous months.^[32] Following these developments, on 17 May 2024, the MoMA issued its own announcement, noting interpretation gaps had been addressed with the support of EUAA personnel and referring to delays, from the side of METAdrasi NGO, in presenting the necessary documents provided by law in order to sign a new contract, as the designated provider of interpretation services.^[33] However, despite assurances, throughout 2024 there was nearly no interpretation available within the Asylum Service and extremely limited numbers of interpreters in refugee camps both on the mainland and the Greek islands.[34]  Despite the resuming of interpretation services, delays noted affected scheduling and services throughout 2025.

As regards remote interpretation, its use continued to be observed frequently and was not limited to remote RAOs and AAUs, that may not have a sufficient number of interpreters.

Technical deficiencies and constraints should be taken into consideration when assessing the quality of remote interpretation. When it comes to rare languages, if no interpreter is available to conduct a direct interpretation from that language to Greek (or English in cases examined by EUAA case workers), more interpreters might be involved in the procedure to translate through different languages.

Recording and transcript

The Asylum Code provides for the audio recording of the personal interview. A detailed report is drafted for every personal interview, which includes the applicants’ main arguments and all the essential elements of their claim. The audio recording of the interview accompanies the report. For interviews conducted by videoconference, audio recording is compulsory. When audio recording is not available, the report includes a full transcript of the interview and the applicant is invited to certify the accuracy of the content of the report by signing it, with the assistance of the interpreter who also signs it, where present.^[35] The applicant may at any time request a copy of the transcript, a copy of the audio file or both.^[36]

Notification of First Instance Decisions

The IPA introduced the possibility for first instance decisions to not be communicated in person to the applicant (‘fictitious service’, πλασματική επίδοση) or the first instance decision to be communicated to the applicant by administrative authorities other than the Asylum Service. Both practices have been maintained in the Asylum Code, significantly limiting applicants’ ability to be informed about the issuance of the first instance decision and/or the content of said decision and/or the possibility to lodge an appeal. Consequently, deadlines for submitting an appeal against a negative first-instance decision may expire without the applicant being actually informed about the decision, for reasons not attributable to themselves. As the Greek Ombudsperson has noted with regard to the provisions of fictitious service, said provisions effectively limit asylum applicants’ access to legal remedies.^[37]

More precisely, according to the Asylum Code, a first instance decision can be communicated:

• in person or;
• with a registered letter sent by the Asylum Service to the applicant or;
• by e-mail to the applicant or;
• by uploading the Decision on an electronic application managed by the Asylum Service, through which applicants have unique access through an account they maintain, or;
• by communicating the decision to authorised lawyers, consultants, and representatives.^[38] In this regard, it should be mentioned that according to the Aylum Code, once a lawyer is appointed by the applicant at any stage of the procedure, the lawyer is considered to be a representative of the applicant for all stages of the procedures, including the service of the decision. This remains the case regardless of whether the applicant is actually and in fact represented by the lawyer at the time of the fictitious service, unless the appointment of the lawyer is revoked by a written declaration of the applicant with an authenticated signature.^[39]

The deadline for lodging an appeal against a negative decision starts on the day following its fictitious service. However, when the service of the decision is made via electronic means, the deadline begins 48 hours after the dispatch of the electronic message.^[40] According to Article 87(3) of the Asylum Code, together with the decision, a document in the language that the applicant understands or in a language that they may reasonably be supposed to understand is also communicated to the applicant, which explains in simple language the content of decision, its consequences and actions they may pursue. Alternatively, a link to the webpage of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum where relevant information is provided is included in the document.

If the applicant resides in a Reception and Identification Centre or is detained in a detention facility, the decision is sent to the Head of the RIC or of the Detention facility, who has to ensure that a notice of receipt, as well as the times of delivery and distribution of the documents to applicants for each working day and time, is posted immediately in visible areas of the premises and draws up an act of receipt and posting. The deadline for lodging an appeal is three days after the act of receipt and posting has been drafted.^[41]

No force majeure reason has to be invoked in order for a decision to be fictitiously served. If the applicant cannot be found/contacted through one of the abovementioned means, and no lawyer has been appointed, the decision is served to the Head of the RAO/AAU of the Asylum Service or the head of the RIC or the detention facility, after which it is deemed that the applicant has been notified of the decision.^[42]

In practice, on the mainland, first instance decisions are mainly served to applicants by e-mail, through their legal representatives or more seldom by registered mail. In cases of electronic notification of first instance decisions, provision of legal aid for the appeals procedure can be requested either in person at the competent RAO or through the electronic platform of the Ministry for Migration and Asylum.^[43] If the latter is the only option (e.g., because the applicant lives far from the competent RAO), it significantly hinders the ability to appeal for those not familiar with the use of electronic applications or who do not have access to the required equipment/internet. Moreover, in practice, the notification of first instance decisions is also carried out by the Head of the RICs on the islands and in Evros and the Head of Pre-removal detention facilities in Athens (Amygdaleza and Tavros). In both cases, the inability of the applicants to understand the content of the communicated documents and the procedure they have to follow has been observed.

Administrative review

Since the entry into force of the IPA on 1 January 2020, the Independent Appeals Committees are the sole administrative bodies competent for the examination of appeals lodged against first instance asylum decisions.

Establishment and Composition of the Independent Appeals Committees of the Appeals Authority

The legal basis for the establishment of the Appeals Authority was amended several times in recent years and has been further amended by the IPA.^[45] More precisely, following an amendment in 2016, the composition of the Appeals Authorities consisted of two active Administrative Judges in the new three-member Appeals Committees (Ανεξάρτητες Αρχές Προσφυγών) and a third member, holding a university degree in Law, Political or Social Sciences or Humanities with specialisation and experience in the fields of international protection, human rights or international or administrative law.^[46] According to the amendment introduced by the IPA, the three-member Appeals Committees are composed by three active Administrative Judges of First Instance Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal. Moreover, a single member/Judge Committee has been introduced.^[47]

These amendments have been highly criticised and issues of unconstitutionality have been raised due to the composition of the Committees inter alia by the Union of Administrative Judges,^[48] and the Union of Bar Associations.^[49]

The Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, considering an application for annulment with regards to the compliance with the Greek Constitution of the single member/Judge Appeals Committee, sent a question for a preliminary ruling to the Council of State (CoS), whose Plenary Session, following a reference from its Fourth Chamber, ruled by majority, in December 2024, that the provision of Law 4686/2020, which stipulates that the Independent Appeals Committees operate under a one-member composition, is contrary to the Constitution. The CoS also deemed that for reasons of public interest the decision will have to be published and applied after April 2025. After the publication, appeals against decisions of the Asylum Service will not be heard by Independent Appeals Committees with a one-member composition.[50]

As mentioned above, Appeals Committees are composed of active administrative judges of both First Instance and Administrative Courts of Appeal. However, following the entry into force of the IPA, the responsibility for the judicial review of the second instance decisions issued by the Appeals Committees has been attributed to the First Instance Administrative Courts and thus further issues of constitutionality may occur. In October 2020, the Council of State triggered its pilot procedure upon referral of three cases from the Administrative Court of Athens, supported by RSA, with a view to adjudicating on the constitutionality of the competence of Administrative Courts to judicially review decisions of the Appeals Committees, given that second instance decisions may be – and often are – taken by Committees composed by higher-court judges (Administrative judges of the Administrative Courts of Appeal).^[51]

In October 2021, the Council of State held by majority that the competence of First Instance Administrative Courts to judicially review decisions of the Appeals Committees, even in cases where the second instance decisions on asylum applications are taken by Committees composed by higher-court judges, is constitutional.^[52] Specifically, it considered that Appeals Committees are a “collective administrative body” which exercises “competences of a judicial function”, and that judges participate therein not as judicial officials but as “state officials – members of independent authorities of the executive”. First-instance Administrative Courts therefore judicially review decisions by executive bodies, not rulings by judicial officials. Accordingly, the judicial review carried out by lower judges of decisions taken by higher judges was not deemed contrary to the principle of judicial independence and impartiality.^[53]

The Appeals Authority consisted of 21 Independent Appeals Committees,^[54] which were reduced to 20 following JMD 109288/30.04.2024 (Gazette B’ 2602/01.05.2024).

EUAA’s role at second instance

Since 2017, the law foresees that “in case of a large number of appeals”, the Appeals Committees might be assisted by “rapporteurs” provided by EUAA (at the time, EASO).^[55] These rapporteurs have access to the files and are entrusted with drafting a detailed and in-depth report, that will contain a record and statement of the facts of the case along with the main claims of the appellant, as well as a matching of said claims (αντιστοίχιση ισχυρισμών) with the country of origin information that will be presented before the competent Committee in order to decide.^[56] Both the IPA and the Asylum Code have maintained the same tasks for “rapporteurs” provided by EUAA.^[57] However, according to the IPA, this is not only foreseen “in case of a large number of appeals”. Articles 95(4) IPA and 100 (4) Asylum Code provides that each member of the Appeals Committee may be assisted by “rapporteurs” provided by EUAA.

As in previous years[58], data on the number of Rapporteurs during 2025 was not published by the MoMA. Though the 2025 EUAA operational plan for Greece includes reference to support provided by the Agency to the Greek authorities in the context of Appeals,[59] there is no specification on the type and number of relevenat personnel.

Number of appeals and recognition rates at second instance

A total of 12,552 appeals were lodged against Asylum Service decisions throughout Greece in 2025, of which 12,129 on the mainland and 423 on the islands.^[60] The Independent Appeals Committees handed down a total of 10,700 decisions in 2025, 319 of which concerned archivals and implicit/explicit withdrawals.^[61]

Source: MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 8b. An additional 19 appeals against decisions revoking protection status were accepted, while 28 out of the 6,388 rejected cases concerned the maintenance of subsidiary protection granted at 1^st instance.

As in previous years,^[62] the recognition rate at second instance remained exceptionally low. Out of the total in-merit decisions (6,879), the rejection rate reached 92.9%, while refugee recognition rate stood at 4.6% and subsidiary protection rate at 1.8%. The majority of second instance decisions granting international protection in 2025 concerned stateless persons (44%), followed by nationals of Afghanistan (29.03%), Syria (26.16%), Eritrea (15.38%), and China (13.64%), with Nepal (0%), Bangladesh (0%), India (0%), Albania (0.36%) and Pakistan (0.64%) being at the lower end of the spectrum.^[63]

Out of the 3,502 decisions rejecting appeals as inadmissible, close to half (49.5% or 1,732) were rejected due to late submission,^[64] i.e., on grounds that the appeal had been filed after the deadline provided in the law.

According to the Ministry, the recognition rate between at frist instance (AS) has been 53,1% refugee status and 5,2% subsidiary protections while at the second instance the rate was 3.1 % and 1.2 % respectively. [65]

An important difference between the practice of the Appeals Committees and the Asylum Service continues to be the comparatively more systematic use of subsidiary protection. This trend continues to raise concerns about possible shortcomings in the substantive assessment of asylum applications, given the extremely low number of applications heard orally in the Appeals Committees.[66]

Examples of such cases issued in 2025 include:

• The case of a separated minor from Syria of Kurdish origin residing in Greece with his brother. The Appeals Committee rejected his claim of international protection and ordered his return to Syria, while the Committee responsible for his brother’s case recognized him as a refugee due to his Kurdish origin in conjunction with prevailing circumstances in Syria. Both committees seem to be unaware of the other case and the family link between the two persons.
• The case of a young man from Afghanistan being away from his country of origin since his teenage years. Despite particular claim of persecution in his written submission, the Committee rejected his claim due to a lack of a particular fear of persecution. Subsidiary protection was also denied due to the change of circumstances in Afghanistan.
• The case of a young male from Egypt suffering for a extremely rare terminal disease, who was hospitalized during the procedure. Despite several documents being provided for by the hospital, and the fact he was incapacitated at the time, the Committee reject his claim and ordered his return.[67]

Time limits for lodging an Appeal before the Appeals Committees

An applicant may lodge an Appeal before the Appeals Committees against a first instance decision of the Asylum Service rejecting their application for international protection.^[68]

The appeal may be lodged against a decision rejecting the application as unfounded under the regular procedure or against the part of the decision that grants subsidiary protection. The deadline for submitting an appeal is 30 days from the notification of the decision or from the date they are presumed to have been notified.^[69] The deadline is shortened to 20 days if the applicant was notified of the rejection decision while in detention.^[70]

Scope of the Appeal

According to Article102(10) Asylum Code, the Appeals Committees conduct a full and ex nunc examination of the asylum application.^[71] Based on legal precedents, Committees have the power to carry out their own assessment of the evidence and elements of the file.^[72] Contrary to this position, however, some Committees have declared themselves as lacking jurisdiction to examine issues such as the need of the applicant for special procedural guarantees, where the first instance authority concluded that they are not vulnerable.^[73]

Form of the Appeal

According to Article 98 Asylum Code, the appeal, inter alia, has to be submitted in writing and mention the “specific grounds” on which the applicant relies to challenge the first instance decision. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the appeal is rejected as inadmissible without an examination on the merits.

This provision has been largely criticised as it severely restricts access to the appeal procedure in practice, and appears to contradict EU law.[74] As noted by UNHCR at the time of the provision’s introduction in law in 2019 (under Article 93 IPA), “[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”.^[75]

In practice, the requirements set by the Asylum Code (and previously by the IPA) can only be fulfilled when a lawyer assists the applicant. Yet considering the gaps in the provision of free legal aid, this remains a challenge.

Out of the total 12,039 appeals against first instance negative decisions submitted in 2024,^[76] legal aid was provided in less than two out of three cases (total of 7,902[77] cases or roughly 65.63% of cases).^[78] Since it is unlikely that a third of appellants (4,137 or 34.36%) had either sufficient funds to secure a private lawyer and/or received free legal aid by NGOs, as in previous years,^[79] this discrepancy highlights the ongoing challenges that applicants face in accessing and securing state funded free legal aid and in turn in accessing effective remedies.

During 2025, a total of 12,552 appeals against first instance negative decisions were submitted.^[80] A total of 48 appeals were rejected as inadmissible on formal grounds («τυπικοί λόγοι») during 2025.[81] No information on legal aid statistics is available for 2025. Nonetheless, since the number of appeals is higher than in 2024, and the capacity of the legal aid registry remains the same, it is safe to conclude that the applicants faced the same challenges in assessing free legal aid.

Suspensive effect

The Asylum Code provides for the suspensive effect of appeals before the Appeals Authority. It also introduces a number of exceptions to this rule. In particular, those concerning applications rejected in the accelerated procedure or dismissed as inadmissible under certain grounds. In such cases, the appellant may submit an application before the Appeals Committees, requesting their stay in the country until the second-instance appeal decision is issued. Suspensive effect covers the period “during the time limit provided for an appeal and until the notification of the decision on the appeal”.^[82]

More precisely, according to Article 110 Asylum Code,^[83] the appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect in case of an appeal against a first instance decision rejecting the application as inadmissible:

1. because another EU Member State has granted international protection status;
2. because another State, bound by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, has taken responsibility for the examination of the application for international protection, pursuant to the Regulation

• by virtue of the first country of asylum concept;

1. because the application is a subsequent application, in which no new elements or findings have been found during the preliminary examination; in case of an appeal against a second subsequent asylum application, and in a number of cases examined under the Accelerated Procedure.

In its report “Comments on the Draft Law of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum”, the National Commission for Human Rights remarked that, while the abolition of the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection is in principle in conformity with Union law, an appeal against a return or removal decision pursuant to Article 6 par. 6 or Article 8 par. 3 respectively of Directive 2008/115/EC should automatically have a suspensive effect, as this decision may expose the third country national to a real risk of treatment contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.^[84] As further noted by FRA:

‘If a return decision were to be implemented before a final decision on international protection, this would also undermine the right to asylum (Article 18 of the Charter) and the principle of non-refoulement (Article 19 of the Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR) as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR in their respective case law. Closely connecting or merging the two procedural steps must not lead to the reduction of safeguards which are necessary to ensure that Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter are not circumvented.’^[85]

The practice of the Appeals Committees in 2022 and 2023 showed that the requirement of a separate request for suspensive effect under Article 104(2) IPA and Article 110(2) Asylum Code has introduced a superfluous procedural step, as the Committees systematically dismiss requests for suspensive effect as having no object (άνευ αντικειμένου), after having issued a positive or negative decision on the merits of the appeal, since the abovementioned application is examined on the date of the hearing of the case and the relevant ruling is included in the decision issued upon the appeal.

In 2021, 4,653 requests were submitted to the Appeals Authority to stay in the country until the second-instance decision has been issued. During the reference period, the Appeals Authority issued 4,476 second instance decisions rejecting requests for suspensive effect and ordering the removal of the appellant.^[86] Relevant data for 2022, 2023,  2024 and 2025 was not provided.

Procedure before the Appeals Authority

Written procedure: As a rule, the procedure before the Appeals Committee is conducted in writing and the examination of the Appeal is based on the elements in the case file.^[87] The Appeals Committees shall invite the appellant to an oral hearing when:^[88]

• The appeal is lodged against a decision which withdraws the international protection status (see Cessation and Withdrawal);
• Issues or doubts are raised relating to the comprehensiveness of the appellant’s interview at first instance; or
• The appellant has submitted substantial new elements.

As per data that has become available in the context of parliamentary scrutiny,[89] a total of 310 oral hearings were conducted throughout 2024. This amounts to less than 2.5% of the 12,911 second instance decisions issued during the year. No statistical information is available for 2025.

Article 111 of the Asylum Code prohibits the Appeals Committee from reverting a case to the Asylum Service for a new first instance interview. In cases, however, where the Appeals Committee considers it necessary to hold an interview, the law provides that the interview shall be conducted by the Committee itself, in accordance with the provisions of Article 82.^[90] The Council of State held that the above provision on the prohibition of reverting cases back to the Asylum Service is compliant with Directive 2013/32/EU, since the interview conducted by the Appeals Committee with the applicant ensures the respect of requirements and guarantees provided in the Directive for the personal interview.^[91]

Obligation of the Appellant to be present before the Appeals Committees on the day of the examination: Despite the fact that the procedure before the Appeals Committees remains written without hearings as a rule, Articles 102(2) and 83(3) of the Asylum Code impose an obligation on the appellant to personally appear before the Appeals Committee on the day of the examination of their appeals on penalty of rejection of their appeal as manifestly unfounded.^[92] This is an obligation imposed on the appellant even if s/he has not been called for an oral hearing, though exceptions are provided where:

1. The appellant resides in a RIC or Accommodation Centre, in which case a written certification of the Head of the RIC or the Accommodation Centre can be sent to the Committee prior to the date of the examination, certifying that s/he remains there. This certification must be issued no more than three days prior of the examination of the appeal.^[93]
2. A geographical limitation or an obligation to reside in a given place of residence has been imposed on the appellant, in which case a declaration signed by the appellant and verified by the Police or the Citizens Service Centre (KEP), can be sent to the Appeals Committee, prior to the date of the examination. This signed declaration and the authentication of the appellant’s signature upon the document must be issued no more than three days prior to the examination of the appeal.^[94]

In both cases, Article 83(3)(β) Asylum Code provides that if the aforementioned certificates are not received by the Appeals Authority, the applicant shall be deemed to have implicitly withdrawn their appeal in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 Asylum Code. Alternatively, in both cases, the appellant’s lawyer or other authorised adviser can instead appear before the Committee on behalf of the appellant. This possibility is subject to the appellant having such an authorised representative.

Lastly, the appellant’s obligation to present themselves before the Appeals Authority is temporarily suspended in case of force majeure, such as serious illness or serious physical disability, which makes it impossible for the appellant to appear in person, for as long as the grounds constituting force majeure remain in effect. In such a case, the appellant must submit a request, citing in a concrete manner the grounds amounting to force majeure or insurmountable impediment which makes it impossible for them to appear in person, and must immediately substantiate their allegation through written evidence and relevant certificates or a certificate from a public authority. Where it is established that these grounds exist, and provided that the applicant appears in person before the competent authorities, the consequences of the prior failure to appear are waived.^[95]

Evidently, these provisions impose an unnecessary administrative obligation (in-person appearance of the applicant/lawyer as well as submission of extra certifications) and a disproportionate “penalty”, as the in-merits rejection of an appeal without examination of the substance raises serious concerns as to the effectiveness of the remedy and the principle of non-refoulement. This obligation also disregards the criticism that the law on asylum “puts an excessive burden on asylum applicants and focuses on punitive measures. It introduces tough requirements that an asylum applicant could not be reasonably expected to fulfil”.^[96] As noted by UNHCR already in 2020, these provisions “are expected to have a negative impact on applicants’ access to the second instance and the proper examination of their appeal, and as such seriously undermine the right to an effective remedy”.^[97] The First Instance Administrative Court of Thessaloniki filed a request for preliminary ruling by the CJEU,[98] asking the Luxemburg Court whether the non-appearance of the appellant before the Appeals Committees on the day of the examination of their appeal and the rejection thereof as “manifestly unfounded”, without a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, complies with the right to an effective remedy provided in the Article 46 of the Directive 2013/32/EU.^[99] The case is still pending before the Court. However, according to the Opinion of the CJEU’s Advocate General, published on 6 February 2025, the provisions laid down by Greek legislation concerning the examination of appeals against a first instance negative asylum decision by the Appeals Committees make it excessively difficult to exercise the right of appeal and disproportionately impede the right to appeal and judicial protection.[100]

In 2025, a total of 4,680 appeals were rejected as manifestly unfounded, of which 67.4% (or 3,154) concerned the application of the safe country of origin concept.^[101] For the rest (1,526), statistics issued by the MoMA do not include a breakdown and, therefore, it remains impossible to assess the exact legal basis of these rejections.

Issuance of a Decision: Article 106 Asylum Code provides that decisions have to be issued as soon as possible and in any case:

• Within thirty (30) days of the hearing of the case in the regular procedure,
• Within twenty (20) days of the hearing in the accelerated procedure,
• Within ten (10) days of the hearing when the appellant is under administrative detention,
• Within twenty (20) days of the hearing when the application was rejected at first instance as inadmissible in accordance with Article 89.

An exception is introduced for priority cases, as the decision must be issued within 15 days of the hearing.

Notification of second instance decision: Similar to the fictitious service at first instance, the Asylum Code provides for the possibility of a fictitious service (πλασματική επίδοση) of second instance decisions as described above.^[102] Considering that the “fictitious” service of the second instance decision triggers the deadline for lodging an appeal, these deadlines for legal remedies against a negative second instance decision may expire without the applicant being actually informed about the decision. As noted by the Greek Ombudsperson, these provisions “effectively limit the access of asylum applicants to judicial protection” and though “the need to streamline procedures is understandable … in a State governed by law, this cannot restrict fundamental democratic guarantees, such as judicial protection”.^[103]

The right to remain in the country is revoked once the second instance decision is issued, irrespective of when the decision is communicated.^[104] As noted by UNHCR:^[105]

‘UNHCR is concerned that such amendment would allow for the removal of a person from the territory before a second instance decision is notified to him/her. The parallel notification of a negative appeal decision is also undermining the right to judicial protection […], as persons whose claims are rejected will not be able to submit an application for annulment or an application for suspension in practice, which could ultimately lead to a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. The deprivation of legal stay before a notification of a negative decision has further premature negative repercussions on the enjoyment of the rights of asylum applicants from which they are to be excluded only following the notification of negative decision (e.g. the right to shelter and cash assistance).’

Individuals whose asylum applications are rejected at second instance no longer have the status of “asylum applicant”,^[106] and thus do not benefit from reception conditions.

Judicial review

Applicants for international protection may lodge an application for annulment (αίτηση ακύρωσης) of a negative second instance decision of the Appeals Committees solely before the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens or Thessaloniki,^[107] within 30 days from the notification of the decision.^[108] Following the lodging of the application for annulment, an application for suspension can be filed.

A request for an interim order can be filed also for temporary protection from removal after the application for suspension, only in cases were the decision to return the person in his country of origin is issued by the Police Alliens Directorate and should be issued within 15 days from the lodging of the application.^[109]

Rejected asylum seekers at second instance do not have the capacity to lodge an interim measure request, only an application for suspension which can take months before it is decided up on.

The effectiveness of these legal remedies is severely undermined by a number of practical and legal obstacles:

• The application for annulment and application for suspension/interim order can only be filed by a lawyer. In addition, no legal aid is provided in order to challenge a second instance negative decision. The capacity of NGOs to file such applications is very limited due to high legal fees. The fees for filing an application for annulment varies between 257,80 euros to 318,55 euros, while the fees for filing an application for suspension varies between 145,40 euros to 198,35 euros, depending on the employment status of the lawyer. An additional financial burden required for the hearing of the application for suspension is the notification of the application to the Minister of Migration and Asylum, performed by a bailiff and amounting to 43,40 euros. Additionally, when it comes to the hearing of the application for annulment, if the applicant is not present at the hearing, the submission of a proxy is required, which costs approx. 60-65 euros. Legal aid may only be requested under the general provisions of Greek law,^[110] which are in any event not tailored to asylum applicants and cannot be accessed by them in practice due to several obstacles. For example, the request for legal aid is submitted by an application written in Greek; free legal aid is granted only if the legal remedy for which the legal assistance is requested is not considered “manifestly inadmissible” or “manifestly unfounded”.^[111] As noted by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention “[i]nadequate legal aid is provided for challenging a second instance negative decision on an asylum application, and the capacity of NGOs to file this application is very limited given the number of persons in need of international protection”.^[112]
• The application for annulment and application for suspension/interim order do not have an automatic suspensive effect.^[113] Therefore between the submission of an application for suspension/interim order and the in-merit decision of the court, there is no guarantee that the applicant will not be removed from the territory.
• The Administrative Court can only examine the legality of the decision and not the merits of the case.
• The judicial procedure is lengthy. GCR is aware of several cases pending for a period of more then five years for the issuance of a decision of the Administrative Court of Appeals following an application for annulment.

Moreover, according to Article 114(2) of the Asylum Code, the Minister on Migration and Asylum also has the right to lodge an application for annulment against the decisions of the Appeals Committee before the Administrative Court. In 2020, the Minister on Migration and Asylum lodged one application for annulment against a second instance decision of the Appeals Committees. The Appeals Committee rejected the Minister’s appeal and ruled that an applicant for whom a decision to discontinue the examination of the asylum application due to implicit withdrawal has been issued, cannot be removed before the nine-month period during which she can report again to the competent authority in order to request her case be reopened. The Minister appealed to the Council of State which, on 27 June 2022, issued decision No. 1398/2022, accepting the Minister’s application for annulment.^[114]

A total of 89 applications for annulment were lodged before the Administrative Courts of Athens and Thessaloniki against second instance negative decisions in 2025, marking a 77% decrease compared to the previous year (385). Of these, 1 was accepted, 1 was rejected, and the rest (87) were pending at the end of the year.^[115]

During the same period, a total of 565 decisions on applications for annulment were issued, of which 86 were accepted, 96 were rejected as unfounded, and 340 were rejected as inadmissible, while 43 concerned resignations.^[116]

Legal assistance

Asylum applicants have the right to consult, at their own cost, a lawyer or other legal advisor on matters relating to their application.^[117] Any qualified lawyer registered with a Bar Association in Greece has the right to assist or intervene in an international protection case without additional training required. This includes lawyers employed by NGOs.

Legal assistance at first instance

No state-funded legal aid is provided at first instance, nor is there a legal obligation to provide it. A number of non-governmental organisations (NGO) provide free legal assistance and counselling to asylum applicants at first instance, depending on their capacity and presence across the country. The scope of these services remains limited, taking into consideration the number of applicants in Greece and the needs throughout the whole asylum procedure – including registration of the application, first and second instance, judicial review and the complexity of the procedures followed. As noted by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ‘[t]he Working Group urges the Government to expand the availability of publicly funded legal aid so that persons seeking international protection have access to legal advice at all stages of the process, from the moment of filing their application until a final determination is made’.^[118]

Legal assistance at second instance

Free legal assistance is provided to applicants in appeal procedures before the Appeals Authority under the terms and conditions set in the Ministerial Decision 788502/2023.^[119] According to Ministerial Decision 494476/2023, the legal assistance scheme in appeal procedures is covered under AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) for the period of 2021-2027.^[120]

According to Joint Ministerial Decision 788502/2023 regulating the State-funded legal aid scheme, asylum applicants are entitled to legal aid as long as they are not represented by another lawyer. The application for legal aid must be filed before the submission of the appeal.^[121]

Article 2 of Ministerial Decision no 494476/2023 stipulates that, in order to be included in the Registry of Lawyers maintained by the Asylum Service, a lawyer must be an active and non-suspended member of a Greek Bar Association that has not been disciplined by the Bar and that holds very good knowledge of the English language. Additionally, every lawyer registered in the Registry must have completed a training seminar on International Protection Law, organised by the Asylum Service of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum in cooperation with other actors, before being assigned cases.[122]

The decision also explicitly provides for the possibility of legal assistance through videoconferencing in every Regional Asylum Office.^[123] The fixed fee of the Registry’s lawyers is € 90 for the drafting and submission of the appeal and of the suspension application if required, € 20 for the conclusion of the meeting with the appellant and € 50 for the memorandum, regardless of whether the appeal was filed by the applicant within the deadline provided by law or not. The fees are covered by the State.^[124]

Throughout 2024 there were delays in the payment of the fees due to the lawyers on the Legal Aid Register of the Asylum Service. As a result, in November 2024, following a decision of the Plenary of the Hellenic Bar Associations, the lawyers of the Registry abstained from their duties starting on 01.11.2024. The abstention was extended by a new decision of the Plenary, initially until 31.12.2024, and subsequently until 24.91.2025.[125] In a letter dated 13 November 2024 addressed to the Director of the Asylum Service, the Administrative Director of the Appeals Authority, and the Director of the Reception and Identification Service, twenty civil society organisations, active in the field of migration and asylum, highlighted that the abstention from their duties of the lawyers of the Registry of the Asylum Service resulted in “a complete and objective inability of the Administration to meet its obligation to provide free legal assistance and representation at the second instance at the request of the persons concerned, as well as to ensure the continuation of such assistance throughout the appeal proceedings before the Independent Appeals Committees.” They also called for the suspension of issuance of first instance decisions rejecting and partially rejecting applications.[126]

In practice requests for legal aid at second instance are mainly submitted through the electronic platform of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum,^[127] notably because, as described above, first instance decisions may be notified to the applicants with a registered letter or other ways of notification and applicants’ access to RAOs/AAU is not unrestricted but a prior appointment is usually required, depending on the competent RAO/AAU. This may pose additional obstacles to applicants who are unfamiliar with the use of electronic applications or who do not have access to the required equipment/internet. In 2024, applicants continued to be advised to apply online for free legal aid. However, it has been noticed in certain RAOs/AAU that, in case of the decision’s notification in person to the applicant by the Asylum Service, the applicants are asked whether they would like to file a request for free legal aid in person on the same day and time.

As previously mentioned, a total of 12,039 appeals were lodged against Asylum Service decisions in 2024, the majority of which (25.7%) were filed by appellants from Egypt, followed by those from Pakistan (11.3%), Sierra Leone (7.5%), Syria (6.9%) and Somalia (5.8%).^[128] Data on the number of applicants that were granted free legal assistance at second instance through the Registry of Lawyers of the GAS is not available on the Ministry’s website. However, according to MoMA’s response to a relevant parliamentary question, a total of 7,902 applicants were granted state funded legal aid throughout 2024.[129] There is no available information reguarding state legal aid at the second instance for 2025.

[1] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 10a.

[2] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 7c.

[3] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2024 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, table 7c.

[4] Article 88(6) Asylum Code.

[5] Article 74(6) Asylum Code.

[6] RSA, Huge deficiencies in the provision of interpretation services in Greece, Asylum interviews are no longer even being conducted, 5 November 2024, available here. See also: Civil Society Organizations Open Letter to the Minister of Migration and Asylum and the Minister of Health, Put an end to the disruption of interpretation services still undermining asylum seekers’ rights in Greece, 1 November 2024, available here.

[10] Information provided by the Asylum Service, 31 March 2021.

[11] JMD 458568/2021, Gov. Gazette Β’ 5949/16-12-2021.

[12] Article 82(7) Asylum Code.

[13] Article 82(7) Asylum Code.

[14] Article 82(9) Asylum Code.

[15] Article 82(4) Asylum Code.

[16] Article 82(10) Asylum Code.

[17] Article 82(11) Asylum Code.

[18] Article 82(12)(a) Asylum Code.

[19] Article 82(5) Asylum Code.

[20] Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[21] According to the workflows developed jointly between EUAA and the Greek Asylum Service the drafting of concluding remarks by EUAA caseworkers is no longer required for a large share of cases (those examined on admissibility), while in parallel is has been agreed that for efficiency reasons (as regards EUAA support to first instance processing), EUAA caseworkers will be mainly conducting interviews, and should only draft concluding remarks for a limited number of cases: Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[22 Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[23] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 8a.

[24] AIDA, Country Report: Greece, 2019 Update, pp. 58-59, available here.

[25] Case file with the author.

[26] Decision on file with the author.

[27] File with the author.

[28] File with the author.

[29] File with the author.

[30] Article 82(3) Asylum Code.

[31] Article 74(3) Asylum Code.

[32] METAdrasi, End of the provision of interpretation services in the asylum procedures and the Reception and Identification Centres throughout Greece, 14 May 2024, no longer available online. Also see Kathimerini, Refugees without the possibility to communicate, 17 May 2024, available in Greek here.

[33] MoMA, Anouncement, 17 May 2024, available in Greek here.

[34] Fenix, Open Letter: Put an end to the disruption of interpretation services still undermining asylum seekers’ rights in Greece, 01 November 2024, available here.

[35] Article 82(13) Asylum Code.

[36] Article 82(15) Asylum Code.

[37] Ombudsperson, Παρατηρήσεις στο σχέδιο νόμου Προσαρμογή της Ελληνικής Νομοθεσίας προς τις διατάξεις της Οδηγίας 2013/33/ΕΕ (αναδιατύπωση 29.6.13) σχετικά με τις απαιτήσεις για την υποδοχή των αιτούντων διεθνή προστασία κ.ά. διατάξεις, April 2018, available in Greek here.

[38] Article 87(3) Asylum Code.

[39] Article 76(7) Asylum Code.

[40] Article 87(3) Asylum Code.

[41] Article 87(4) Asylum Code.

[42] Article 87(5) Asylum Code.

[43] MoMA, Asylum Services, available here.

[44] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 10b.

[45] More precisely, it was amended twice in 2016 by L 4375/2016 in April 2016 and L 4399/2016 in June 2016, in 2017 by L 4461/2017 and in 2018 by L 4540/2018; See AIDA, Country Report: Greece, 2019 update, available here.

[46] Article 5 L. 4375/2016 as amended; the third member is appointed by UNHCR or the National Commissioner for Human Rights if UNHCR is unable to appoint one. If both are unable, the (now) Minister for Migration Policy appoints one.

[47] Article 116(2) and (7) IPA.

[48] Union of Administrative Judges, Υπόμνημα Ενόψει της συζήτησης του σχεδίου νόμου του Υπουργείου Προστασίας του Πολίτη «Περί Διεθνούς Προστασίας και άλλες διατάξεις», 30 October 2019, available in Greek here.

[49] Union of Bar Associations, Επιστολή του Προέδρου της Ολομέλειας των Δικηγορικών Συλλόγων προς τον Υπουργό Προστασίας του Πολίτη για το σχέδιο νόμου για τη Διεθνή Προστασία, 25 October 2019, available in Greek here.

[50] Ertnews, The Council of State judges the unilateral composition of Independent Appeals Committees in asylum procedures unconstitutional, 03 December 2024, available in Greek here.

[51] Council of State, Γνωστοποίηση της υπ’ αριθ. 19/12-10-2020 πράξης της Επιτροπής του άρθρου 1 παρ. 1 του ν. 3900/2010, 13 October 2020, available in Greek at https://tinyurl.com/eufakwy5; RSA, The Council of State pilot procedure on judicial review in the asylum procedure, 1 February 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/480b4DN.

[52] Council of State, Decision Nr. 1580-1/2021, October 2021.

[53] Council of State (Plenary), Decisions 1580/2021 and 1581/2021, 8 October 2021, para. 14.

[54] JMD 27290/2020, Gov. Gazette B’4896/6-11-2020.

[58] See previous AIDA reports n Greece, avilble at: https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/greece/. 

[59] EUAA, Operational plan 2025 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Greece, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mrxmpbws, pp. 7-8.  

[61] Ibid. Table 8b.

[63] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp p.15.

[64] Ibid. Table 8b.

[65] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp, p.15.

[66] Refugee Support Aegean, The Greek asylum procedure in figures in 2023, available here.

[67] All decisions are with the author.

[68 Article 97(1) Asylum Code.

[69] Article 97(1) Asylum Code

[70]  Article 97(1) Asylum Code

[71] Council of State (Plenary), Decision 1694/2018, 21 August 2018, para 19.

[72] 19th Appeals Committee, Decision 6219/2021, 25 May 2021, para 4; 12th Appeals Committee, Decision 56970/2021, 10 June 2021, para A.7; 11th Appeals Committee, Decision 59841/2021, 11 June 2021, para 7; 11th Appeals Committee, Decision 62800/2021, 14 June 2021, para 9; 3rd Appeals Committee, Decision 75059/2021, 18 June 2021, para II.2; 6th Appeals Committee, Decision 140330/2021, 21 July 2021, 12; 8th Appeals Committee, Decision 1592/2021, 21 July 2021, para 3; 12th Appeals Committee, Decision 233902/2021, 9 September 2021, 3.

[73] 6th Appeals Committee, Decision 2411/2019, 28 February 2020, para 10; 6th Appeals Committee, Decision 30955/2020, 18 May 2021, para II.4.

[74] Namely Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights.

[75] UNHCR, UNHCR urges Greece to strengthen safeguards in draft asylum law, 24 October 2019, available here.

[76] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2024 – International Protection | Appendix A, available in Greek https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp table 9a.

[77] It is also worth noting that according to the data provided by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, in response to Parliamentary Question no 3383/838/13.02.2025, 7,491 persons applied for legal aid in 2024, while 7,902 persons received it.

[78] As per information disclosed by the Minister of Migration and Asylum in reply to parliamentary question no. 3383/838/13.02.2025 on 7 March 2025. The reply is available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/2xwpkare.

[79] For instance, AIDA report on Greece: 2021 update, May 2022, available here, 20 and AIDA report on Greece: 2022 update, June 2023, available here, 71.

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

[81] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/, Table 8b.

[82] Article 110(1) Asylum Code.

[83] Article 104 L. 4636/2019 as amended by Article 20 L. 4825/2021 and Article 110 Asylum Code.

[84]  GNCHR, Comments on the Draft Law of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum, July 2021, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/58y2mveh.

[85] European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), The recast Return Directive and its fundamental rights implications, FRA Opinion – 1/2019 [Return], 10 January 2019, available at: https://tinyurl.com/bdh44fmz.

[86]  Information provided by the Appeals Authority, March 2022.

[87] Article 102(1) Asylum Code.

[88] Article 102(3) Asylum Code.

[89] See RSA, Asylum procedure statistics in Greece 2024: Four in five asylum applications granted, 5 May 2025, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3nnbb7dh, p.12.

[90] Article 111 Asylum Code.

[91] Council of State, Decision Nr. 689/2021, March 2021.

[92] Article 102(2) Asylum Code.

[93] Article 83(3)(α) Asylum Code.

[94] Article 83(3)(β) Asylum Code.

[95] Article 83(4) Asylum Code.

[96] UNHCR, “UNHCR urges Greece to strengthen safeguards in draft asylum law”, 24 October 2019, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2vmnjc3x.

[97] UNHCR, UNHCR Comments on the Law on ‘International Protection and other Provisions’ (Greece), February 2020, available here, Ibid.

[98] CJEU, Case C-610/23, Al Nasiria, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 3 October 2023 — FO v Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou, available here.

[99] See First Instance Administrative Court of Thesssaloniki, Decision Nr 560/2023, 19 December 2023, available in Greek here.

[100] Opinion of the CJEU Advocate General of 6 February 2025 – Case C-610/23 (Al Nasiria), FO v Minister for Immigration and Asylum, 6 February 2025, reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki (Greece), available here.

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

[102] Article 87 and 108 Asylum Code.                                     

[103] Ombudsperson, Παρατηρήσεις στο σχέδιο νόμου Προσαρμογή της Ελληνικής Νομοθεσίας προς τις διατάξεις της Οδηγίας 2013/33/ΕΕ (αναδιατύπωση 29.6.13) σχετικά με τις απαιτήσεις για την υποδοχή των αιτούντων διεθνή προστασία κ.ά. διατάξεις, April 2018, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/2xkbed6r, pp 7-8.

[104] Article 110 (1) Asylum Code.

[105] UNHCR, UNHCR Comments on the Draft Law ‘Improvement of Migration Legislation, amendment of provisions of Laws 4636/2019 (A’ 169), 4375/2016 (A’ 51), 4251/2014 (A’ 80) and other Provisions, 12 June 2020, available here, p. 9.

[106] Article 1(c) Asylum Code.

[107] Article 114 Asylum Code with reference to Article 15(4) L. 3068/2002

[108] Article 115 Asylum Code.

[109] Article 15(6) L 3068/2002, as amended by Article 115 IPA.

[110] Articles 276 and 276A Code of Administrative Procedure.

[111] Ibid.

[112] UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Addendum: Mission to Greece, A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, 29 July 2020, available here, para. 85.

[113] See, e.g., ECtHR, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, application No 30696/09, Judgment of 21 January 2011.

[114] Council of State, Decision No. 1398/2022, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/2cwxtf2v.

[115] MoMA, Statistics: Consolidated Reports – Overview, December 2025 – International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/26ynfarp Table 12a.

[116] Ibid., table 12b.

[117] Article 71(1) IPA and Article 76(1) Asylum Code.

[118] UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Addendum: Mission to Greece, A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, 29 July 2020, available here, para. 85.

[119] Ministerial Decision 788502/2023, Gov. Gazette 42/B/11.01.2023. MD 3449/2021 was repealed by MD 788502/2023 according to Article 6(2) of MD 788502/2023, MD 3686/2020 was repealed by MD 3449/2021 according to Article 6 of MD 3449/2021, MD 12205/2016 was repealed by MD 3686/2020 according to Article 6(2) MD 3686/2020.

[120] Ministerial Decision 494476/2023, Gov. Gazette 6393/B/07.11.2023.

[121] Gov. Gazette 42/B/11.01.2023.

[122] Ministerial Decision 494476/2023, Gov. Gazette 6393/B/07.11.2023.

[123] Article 1(7) MD 788502/2023.

[124] Article 3 MD 788502/2023.

[125] EfSyn, Ξεκινούν αποχή οι απλήρωτοι δικηγόροι της διαδικασίας ασύλου, 11.11.2024, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/3nhc37bu.

[126] Protocol Number β/147/13.11.2024. On file with the author.

[127] MoMA, Asylum Services, available here.

[128] MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports – Overview: December 2024 – International Protection | Appendix A, available in Greek here, table 9b.

[129] As per information disclosed by the Minister of Migration and Asylum in reply to parliamentary question no. 3383/838/13.02.2025 on 7 March 2025. The reply is available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/2xwpkare.