set out in recital 18, “to safeguard rapid examination of applications for international protection insofar as possible (see CJEU, C-556/17 Torubarov, 29 July 2019, paragraph 53)”. As noted, “[a] contrary reading would merely prolong the duration of examination of the submitted application for international protection and uncertainty on the applicant as regards the status of their stay in the country where they submitted an application, without excluding the risk of their refoulement to a country where they risk facing persecution (mutatis mutandis European Commission on Human Rights, A.H. [Harabi] v. the Netherlands, App No 10798/84, 5 March 1986) and the possibility of disruption in international relations of states”. 535 The decision included two dissenting opinions on whether the non-implementation of readmission should be taken into consideration at the time of issuance of an individual decision on the asylum application assessing whether Türkiye is a safe third country, or at the time of executing the return decision and not before including this country in the national list of safe third countries. Given that reasonable doubts arose as to the meaning of Article 38 of the Directive, the Court postponed its final judgement and formulated preliminary questions to the CJEU. In particular, the CoS had asked whether: ❖ the provisions of Article 38 of Directive 2013/32 precluded a State from designating, by an act of general application, a third country as a safe, when that country had already previously suspended in practice the readmission of applicants to its territory. ❖ alternatively, whether that condition of possibility of readmission to the third country ought to be examined before the adoption of an individual decision rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible under the concept of “safe third country” or only at the time of the execution of that decision. The preliminary questions were discussed in an oral hearing before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 14 March 2024.536 On 4 October 2024, the CJEU, in line with the Advocate’s General Opinion,537 ruled that Member States cannot issue a decision rejecting an asylum application as inadmissible on the basis of the "safe third country" concept in cases where they have established that the asylum seeker will not be allowed to enter the territory of the country designated as safe. The Court accepted, however, that a country may be listed as a safe third country even if, despite its legal obligation, that third country has, in general and without any prospect of a contrary development, suspended the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory. In its judgment, the CJEU held, in the context of examining the first question, that: ❖ Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from designating a third country as generally safe for certain categories of applicants for international protection, even if that third country has suspended, in general terms and without any prospect of a contrary development, the admission or readmission of those applicants to its territory. ❖ Member States may not, however, issue a decision rejecting an application for asylum as inadmissible on the basis of the 'safe third country' concept where they have established that the applicant will not be allowed to enter the territory of the country designated as safe. Therefore, the decision on the existence or not of the possibility of readmission to the third country, in this case Türkiye, becomes a prerequisite at the stage of issuing the decision on the asylum application and not at the stage of its execution, as has been the practice followed to date by the Asylum Service, and in 535 536 537 As further noted: ‘The view that the possibility of entry or readmission of a foreign applicant for protection to a third country constitutes a condition for the designation of a third country as safe has, besides, been set out in soft law texts of the Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers Recommendation R(97)22 and Guidelines of 1 July 2009) and has been supported by part of the international law doctrine (in particular Stephen H. Legomsky, Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2003, p. 567 et seq.), while it has been adopted by courts of other European Union Member States (see Dutch Council of State, decision 201609584/1/V3 of 13 December 2017). Furthermore, the assessment of fulfilment of the possibility of entry or readmission of the foreigner to the safe third country encompasses an examination of both the legal framework in said country (i.e. potential undertaking of a related legal obligation on the part of the third country) and compliance of the third country with its undertaken legal obligations in practice. The above observations lead to the conclusion that, where a Member State establishes a national list of generally safe third countries by making use of the discretion afforded by Article 38(2) of the Directive, it may not, for reasons of rapid conclusion of the examination of applications for international protection as mentioned above, make a regulatory designation of a third country as safe where the fulfilment of the aforementioned condition – the possibility of entry or readmission to said country – is not assessed on both its aforementioned limbs.[…].’ GCR & RSA, Hearing before the Court of Justice of the European Union on Thursday 14 March on the preliminary questions of the Greek Council of State regarding Turkey as a "safe third country", 13 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/8jwbaccz. See also ECRE, Newsletter, “Greece: […] ― CJEU Hearing on Designation of Türkiye as a “Safe Third Country”, 15 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5n8b2etb CJEU, Case C‑134/23, Advocate’s General Opinion, 13 June 2024, available here. 104