Indicative Case law In its decision IΡ/61590/2025 AAU of Amigdaleza, in the case of a subsequent application filed after an implicit revocation of the international protection, an Iranian applicant missed his scheduled interview and that implicit revocation was concluded by the authorities, terminating the examination of the application. According to the AAU, however, the above claims were not recorded, examined, or assessed at an earlier stage, as the applicant did not appear at the scheduled interview for his previous application. Consequently, the above information presented in the applicant’s subsequent application was accepted as new. Consequently, his application required further examination in accordance with Article 94 of Law 4939/2022 and must be deemed admissible in order to be further examined .774 In its decision IP/63615/2025 RAO of Western Greece in the case of a Somali applicant whose first application was rejected due to his transit through Türkiye, at the subsequent application RAO accepted his application on the fact that “it appears from the information in the applicant’s file that one year has elapsed since his transit through Türkiye (…10/2023). The Service considers that the above fact, namely that one year has elapsed since his transit through Türkiye, may be regarded as new. As for the legal requirement regarding whether this element in his subsequent application is also material, the Service considers that this element is indeed material, as it relates to the conditions set forth by the legislation for Türkiye be designated a “safe third country” for the specific applicant in accordance with Article 91 of Law 4939/2022. Consequently, his application requires further examination pursuant to Article 94 of Law 4939/2022 and must be deemed admissible in order to be further examined in accordance with the aforementioned provisions.”775 In the case of ΙΡ/129638/2025 RAO Alimos, the Service considered that the applicant’s claims regarding her mental health, as corroborated by the documents submitted, may, under certain conditions, overturn the conclusions of previous rejection decisions regarding her credibility. Consequently, the claims under consideration must be regarded as new evidence. As for the legal requirement regarding whether the evidence cited by the applicant in her subsequent application is also substantial, the Service considered that the evidence cited by the applicant in her subsequent application was substantial, as they relate to the conditions set forth by law for the applicant to be recognized as a beneficiary of subsidiary protection776 The RAO of Thessalonikis, in decision ΙΡ/752502/2025, accepted the applicants (i.e., a female survivor of SGBV) subsequent applicationeven thought the claim refered to a fact the applicant was aware for the beginning of the procedure. According to the decision “her allegation of sexual harassment suffered at the hands of her uncle and the risk of recurrence of the abuse she cites, it appears that this is being raised for the first time before the competent examining authorities and may be considered new evidence since the applicant was able to explain that, due to fear and cultural barriers, she was unable to raise this claim in her previous applications. As for the legal requirement regarding whether the evidence invoked by the applicant in her subsequent application is also substantial, the Service finds that the evidence invoked in her subsequent application are material, as they alter the assessment of the risk she faces in the event of return to her country of origin. In conclusion, upon evaluating and comparing what the applicant initially stated and what she stated in subsequent application, in conjunction with the information regarding the applicant’s country of origin, it appears that the facts she invokes in the subsequent application are new and substantial. Consequently, her application requires further examination in accordance with Article 94 of Law 4939/2022 and must be deemed admissible in order to be further examined in accordance with the provisions referred to above”.777 774 775 776 777 Decision IP/ 61590/2025 AAU of Amigdaleza summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p.21 Decision IP/ IP/63615/2025 RAO of Western Greece summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p20 Decision IP/ 129638/2025 RAO Alimos summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2025 https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p22 Decision IP/ 752502/2025 RAO Thessaloniki, summary [in Greek} in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2025 https://tinyurl.com/3fkyetz5 p.21 170