Α. Administrative procedures and problems Asylum: the relativisation of the “burden” of the applications Our country considers that it is mainly encumbered with a particularly increased number of asylum applications. A comparative examination however puts this picture into perspective: Hungary in 2014 had received 41,215 applications, whereas in 2015 the number shot up to 174,400.27 In 2016 it received 29,432 applications (at the 1st degree), out of which approximately 11 thousand by Afghani and 4 thousand by Pakistani citizens.28 Correspondingly, Greece in 2014 received 9,434 applications, in 2015 it received 13,195 applications and in 2016 it received 51,091, of which 26,692 were by Syrian, 4.371 by Afghani and 4,695 by Pakistani citizens.29 As emerges from the above, Greece, compared to Hungary, a country with similar population, was affected much less from the flows in respect of the asylum applications. In total, despite the enormous burden put on Greece by the flows in 2015 and in early 2016, it was not one of the top European countries for asylum applications as a population percentage. Statistically, the country in 2015 was in the 17th place among the 30 EU and EEA countries, with 1047 asylum applications per million residents, with countries such as Malta having correspondingly 3948 and Bulgaria 2800.30 In any case, we note the difference in the asylum application figures given on the Migration Policy Ministry website with those of Eurostat, since the former’s numbers are higher (by around 2 thousand per year for the 2014-2015 period). Further analysis of the data, going beyond absolute numbers, shows us that Greece did not receive particular pressures by the sudden increase of the flows in 2015, since according to the previous data of Eurostat, it is in 16th place among the 30 countries as regards the percentage change in 2014-2015, with a 50% increase. Comparatively, during the same period Finland had an 822% increase, Poland 83%, Bulgaria 87% and Estonia 54%.31 This fact, as well as the anticipated closing of the borders from the end of 27 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/304032016-AP-EN.pdf/ 28 http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/hungary/statistics 29 http://asylo.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Greek_Asylum_Service_ Statistical_Data_GR.pdf 30 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/304032016-AP-EN.pdf/ 31 Particularly enlightening for the fluctuations of the applications per month and country in 2015 is the table in http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show. do?dataset=migr_asyappctzm. 20 2015 and the expected increase of the applications, which could reasonably be foreseen, lead to a very significant, but predictable, change in 2016, which was rather smooth compared to other countries. 2. Implementation of vulnerable persons screening 32 2.1. Short review and description of the current situation One of the biggest problems that require an immediate and effective solution is the handling and identification of persons belonging to vulnerable groups. According to the applicable laws,33 vulnerable groups are: a) unaccompanied minors; b) persons with disability or suffering from incurable or serious disease; c) the elderly; d) women during pregnancy or puerperium; e) single-parent families with minor children; f) victims of torture, rape or other serious form of psychological, physical or sexual violence or exploitation, persons with post-traumatic stress disorder, especially survivors and relatives of shipwreck victims, and g) victims of human trafficking. Despite the fact that the existing laws include a provision on special care for these persons, it is proven that its implementation is particularly difficult, due to the significant shortcomings in the screening procedures, in combination with the inadequacy of suitable facilities for the provision of services to persons belonging to vulnerable groups. Starting with the evaluation of the situation before the current legislation with the provisions of Law 4375/2016, it should be noted that despite the existence of a legislative framework, which had incorporated the EU rules (PD 220/2007) and despite the reform of the reception and asylum system with law 3907/2011, the identification procedures for persons requiring special care were particularly problematic. The significant shortcomings and inadequacies of the reception and screening system in the country, in combina32 Identification procedure as part of the First Reception procedure 33 Article 14, par. 8 of Law 4375/2016, added persons with post-traumatic stress disorder, especially survivors and relatives of victims of shipwrecks, in the definitions of vulnerable groups in the provision of Article 11(2) of Law 3907/2011.