30. Greek asylum authorities consistently misapply the case law of the ECtHR on Article 3 of the Convention when adjudicating the safe third country concept in individual asylum cases. Errors in law include the following:53 25.1. IAC severely misinterpret the Mohammadi v. Austria54 ruling of the Court and attribute the following ratio thereto: “It has been held that the designation of a country as safe may be maintained even despite the applicant’s invoking of contrary conclusions of reports by international organisations.” 55 Yet, not only does the aforementioned ruling concern the Dublin system and not the application of the safe third country concept beyond the EU, but in no way does such a reasoning stem from the Court’s judgment 25.2. The Asylum Service and IAC apply a stricter standard of proof on nonrefoulement than the “real risk” test set by ECtHR case law on Article 3.56 They therefore dismiss asylum applications even where applicants demonstrate a real risk of being subjected to refoulement upon return to Türkiye. Cases are dismissed, for instance, on the ground that the evidence submitted does not provide “grounds to believe that every person returned to that country is exposed to a risk of being removed to a country where they will face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment”57 or does not amount to “official confirmation of mass push backs”58 or “does not have the nature of a structural problem”.59 31. Lack of prospect of readmission to Türkiye: Furthermore, Greece pursues the application of the safe third country in the face of a demonstrable and officially admitted lack of prospect of readmission to Türkiye from 2020 to present, in contravention of EU and domestic law.60 In light of this, the Greek Council of State referred preliminary questions to the CJEU in February 2023 on the legality of designation of a safe third country under those circumstances. 61 32. The policy has thereby left thousands of people seeking protection in legal limbo, deprived of access to asylum procedures and to reception conditions for protracted periods of time. Asylum seekers rejected on safe third country grounds, however, continue to be either summarily detained for the purpose of readmission to Türkiye in contravention of Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention, or are ordered “voluntary departure” 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 For analysis, Minos Mouzourakis, ‘Μέτρο απόδειξης στην εφαρμογή της «ασφαλούς τρίτης χώρας» ως λόγου απαραδέκτου των αιτήσεων ασύλου’ (2022) Εφαρμογές Δημοσίου Δικαίου I/2022, 52-57. App No 71932/12, 3 July 2014. 16th IAC, 394674/2022, 7 July 2022; 11th IAC, 67923/2022, 7 February 2022; 21st IAC, 467020/2021, 20 December 2021; 8th IAC, 458313/2021, 15 December 2021. The decisions erroneously refer to Mohammadi v. Austria as a CJEU ruling. Ilias & Ahmed v. Hungary, para 126 and cited case law. See also CJEU, Case C-163/17 Jawo, 19 March 2019, para 87 and cited case law. 4th IAC, 79499/2023, 8 February 2023; 18th IAC, 672919/2022, 11 November 2022; 16th IAC, 394674/2022, 7 July 2022; 19th IAC, 73459/2022, 8 February 2022; 7th IAC, 378505/2021, 11 November 2021; 9th IAC, 288224/2021, 4 October 2021; 7th IAC, 249386/2021, 16 September 2021; 7th IAC, 249361, 16 September 2021; 18th IAC, 165176/2021, 3 August 2021; 18th IAC, 165163/2021, 3 August 2021. 3rd IAC, 17613/2020, 14 September 2020; 13th IAC, 6722/2020, 9 April 2020; 17th IAC, 3576/2020, 10 March 2020. 6th IAC, 5892/2020, 27 May 2020. Article 38(4) Asylum Procedures Directive; Article 91(5) Asylum Code. Council of State, 177/2023, 3 February 2023, para 41, available at: https://shorturl.at/gjBGX. See also Case C-134/23 pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). 12 RSA COMMENTS│ 2023