The view that the possibility of admitting or readmitting a foreign national seeking protection to a third country is a prerequisite for classifying that third country as a safe country has, moreover, been reflected in soft law instruments of the Council of Europe and has been supported by a segment of international law theory, while it has been adopted by courts in other Member States of the European Union (the Dutch Council of State). Furthermore, determining whether the condition of the possibility of admission or readmission of the foreign national to the safe third country is met involves examining both the legal regime existing in that country (i.e., whether the third country has assumed a relevant legal obligation) as well as the actual compliance of the third country with the relevant obligations it has assumed. It follows from the foregoing that, where a Member State draws up a national list of generally safe third countries, making use of the discretion provided for in Article 38(2) of the Directive, it is not permissible, for the purposes of expediting the examination of the applications for international protection referred to above, to be designated as a safe third country under the regulations unless the aforementioned condition—the possibility of entry or readmission to that country- is met with respect to both of the aforementioned specific aspects. In this case, however, the condition set forth above, arising from Article 38(4) of the Directive (and, correspondingly, Article 86(5) of Law 4636/2019) is satisfied, as regards its first (“legal”) part, since it follows from the relevant international agreements and the Joint Declaration of the European Union and Turkey dated March 18, 2016, it follows that the legislative body lawfully accepted that Turkey assumed the legal obligation to accept, under certain conditions, the readmission from Greece of foreign nationals seeking international protection. As for the second part, however, which concerns Turkey’s actual compliance with those legal obligations, the same condition is not met, since it does not appear that applicants for international protection, whose applications have been rejected as inadmissible on the grounds of “safe third country,” are actually being returned to Turkey. In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Regional Asylum Office of Thrace, in its contested decision No. 154091/12.03.2025 (Case No. …), the applicant’s application dated 14.11.2024 was rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey constitutes a safe third country for him. For this reason, the appeal under review must be upheld, the aforementioned contested decision must be annulled, the case must be remanded, and the substance of the applicant’s aforementioned application must be examined. 3.4. Legal assistance Indicators: Admissibility Procedure: Legal Assistance Same as regular procedure 1. Do asylum applicants have access to free legal assistance during admissibility procedures in practice? Yes With difficulty No ❖ Does free legal assistance cover: Representation in interview Legal advice 2. Do asylum applicants have access to free legal assistance on appeal against an inadmissibility decision in practice? Yes With difficulty No ❖ Does free legal assistance cover Representation in courts Legal advice Legal Assistance in the admissibility procedure does not differ from the one granted for the regular procedure (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance). Thus, asylum applicants do not have access to state-provided free legal assistance during the admissibility procedures at first instance but only at second instance.557 The lack of legal assistance has proven particularly problematic, especially for cases falling under the JMD designating Türkiye as a safe third country. While legal aid services are provided at second instance, meaning the submission of an appeal against the first instance negative 557 Article 76 of the Asylum Code. 120