Obligation of the Appellant to be present before the Appeals Committees on the day of the examination: Despite the fact that the procedure before the Appeals Committees remains written without hearings as a rule, Articles 102(2) and 83(3) of the Asylum Code impose an obligation on the appellant to personally appear before the Appeals Committee on the day of the examination of their appeals on penalty of rejection of their appeal as “manifestly unfounded”. 443 This is an obligation imposed on the appellant even if s/he has not been called for an oral hearing, though exceptions are provided where: a) The appellant resides in a RIC or Accommodation Centre, in which case a written certification of the Head of the RIC or the Accommodation Centre can be sent to the Committee prior to the date of the examination, certifying that s/he remains there. This certification must be issued no more than three days prior of the examination of the appeal. 444 b) A geographical limitation or an obligation to reside in a given place of residence has been imposed on the appellant, in which case a declaration signed by the appellant and verified by the Police or the Citizens Service Centre (KEP), can be sent to the Appeals Committee, prior to the date of the examination. This signed declaration and the authentication of the appellant’s signature upon the document must be issued no more than three days prior to the examination of the appeal. 445 In both cases, Article 83(3)(β) Asylum Code provides that if the aforementioned certificates are not received by the Appeals Authority, the applicant shall be deemed to have implicitly withdrawn their appeal in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 Asylum Code. Alternatively, in both cases, the appellant’s lawyer or other authorised adviser can instead appear before the Committee on behalf of the appellant. This possibility is subject to the appellant having such an authorised representative. Lastly, the appellant’s obligation to present themselves before the Appeals Authority is temporarily suspended in case of force majeure, such as serious illness or serious physical disability, which makes it impossible for the appellant to appear in person, for as long as the grounds constituting force majeure remain in effect. In such a case, the appellant must submit a request, citing in a concrete manner the grounds amounting to force majeure or insurmountable impediment which makes it impossible for them to appear in person, and must immediately substantiate their allegation through written evidence and relevant certificates or a certificate from a public authority. Where it is established that these grounds exist, and provided that the applicant appears in person before the competent authorities, the consequences of the prior failure to appear are waived.446 Evidently, these provisions impose an unnecessary administrative obligation (in-person appearance of the applicant/lawyer as well as submission of extra certifications) and a disproportionate “penalty”, as the in-merits rejection of an appeal without examination of the substance raises serious concerns as to the effectiveness of the remedy and the principle of non-refoulement. This obligation also disregards the criticism that the law on asylum “puts an excessive burden on asylum applicants and focuses on punitive measures. It introduces tough requirements that an asylum applicant could not be reasonably expected to fulfil”.447 As noted by UNHCR already in 2020, these provisions “are expected to have a negative impact on applicants’ access to the second instance and the proper examination of their appeal, and as such seriously undermine the right to an effective remedy”.448 The First Instance Administrative Court of Thessaloniki filed a request for preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU),449 asking the Luxemburg Court whether the non-appearance of the appellant before the Appeals Committees on the day of the examination of their appeal and the rejection thereof as “manifestly unfounded”, without a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law, complies with the right to an effective remedy provided in the Article 46 of the Directive 2013/32/EU. 450 The case is still pending before the Court. However, according to the Opinion of the CJEU’s Advocate General, published on 06/02/2025, the provisions laid down by Greek legislation concerning the examination of appeals against 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 Article 102(2) Asylum Code. Article 83(3)(α) Asylum Code. Article 83(3)(β) Asylum Code. Article 83(4) Asylum Code. UNHCR, UNHCR urges Greece to strengthen safeguards in draft asylum law, 24 October 2019, available here. UNHCR, UNHCR Comments on the Law on ‘International Protection and other Provisions’ (Greece), February 2020, available here, Ibid. CJEU, Case C-610/23, Al Nasiria, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) lodged on 3 October 2023 — FO v Ypourgos Metanastefsis kai Asylou, available here. See First Instance Administrative Court of Thesssaloniki, Decision Nr 560/2023, 19 December 2023, available in Greek here. 86