In April 2025, the 17th Appeals Committee accepted the appeal on the rejection of a subsequent application regarding admissibility due to the safe third country concept being applied to a man from Pakistan, focusing on the fact that he did not enjoy legal protection in Türkiye and Türkiye’s denial to allow any return since 2020.554 As noted: “the Commission takes into account that, despite the fact that the applicant resided in Turkey for 1.5 to 2 months before coming to Greece and was working there, albeit without valid documents. Furthermore, as is evident from the above information, since the beginning of 2020, Turkey has not been accepting resettlements. Moreover, as is known to the Commission, on January 4, 2024, a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-134/23 concerning the validity of our country’s ministerial decisions designating Turkey as a “safe third country” for certain categories of applicants for international protection. In this judgment, the Court held, in paragraph 48, that Article 38(4) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection555, “it follows that, where a Member State has designated, by an act of general , a third country as generally safe, despite the fact that the latter has suspended the possibility for applicants for international protection to enter its territory, that Member State must ensure that each of the applicants concerned to have access to a procedure for the examination of the application for international protection which he has submitted,” and in recital 54, which states that “… where it is established that a third country which has been designated by a Member State as generally safe does not, in practice, accept the admission or readmission of the applicants for international protection concerned, that Member State may not reject their applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32. Furthermore, that Member State may not unjustifiably delay the examination of such applications and must, inter alia, ensure that such examination is conducted on an individual basis, in accordance with Article 10(3)(a) of that directive and in compliance with the time limits set out in Article 31 thereof.” In light of these facts, and in view of the requirement that the conditions of Article 91 of the Code, the Commission considers that, in the present case, the conditions laid down by that article are not met for Turkey to be considered a safe country for the applicant. Consequently, the subsequent application for asylum must be deemed admissible and examined on its merits, based on the evidence in the administrative file and in accordance with what the applicant stated during his registration regarding the reason that prompted him to leave his country.” In July 2025, 10th Appeals Committee556accepted the appeal of a single man from Afghanistan focusing on the feasibility of the readmission as a legal requirement: Furthermore, as has been ruled (Council of State 177/2023), a third country that has ratified the Geneva Convention with a geographical limitation may be designated as safe within the meaning of Article 86 of Law 4636/2019 (now Article 91 of Law 4939/2022) and Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, provided that it observes the principle of non-refoulement and provides adequate protection of certain fundamental rights, such as, among others, the right of access to healthcare and the labor market. Interpreted in light of the intended purpose of ensuring the examination of applications for international protection as quickly as possible, and in view of the provisions of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 38 of the Directive (and, correspondingly, Article 86 of Law 4636/2019, now Article 91 of Law 4939/2022) means that a third country cannot be designated as safe unless it is established that the admission or readmission of the applicant for international protection to that third country will be feasible because, otherwise, it would merely prolong the time required to examine the submitted application for international protection and the applicant’s uncertainty regarding their residence status in the country where the application was submitted, without ruling out the risk of their return to a country where he or she risks persecution and the possibility of disrupting international relations between states. 554 Decision IP/229108/2025 17th Appeals Committee, summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p.13 555 Decision ΙΡ/370696/2025 10th Appeals Committee summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2025 https://tinyurl.com/3fkyetz5 p.9-10 556 Decision ΙΡ/370696/2025 10th Appeals Committee summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2025 https://tinyurl.com/3fkyetz5 p.9-10 119