According to the Asylum Code, the deadlines for appealing an inadmissibility decision, the automatic suspensive effect of appeals and the format of the Committee examining them depend on the inadmissibility ground invoked in the first instance decision under the regular procedure:550 Time limits and automatic suspensive effect: Appeals against inadmissibility Ground Deadline (days) Suspensive Format Protection in another EU Member State 20 × Single judge Dublin 15 √ Single judge First country of asylum 20 × Collegial Safe third country 20 √ Collegial Subsequent application with no new elements 5 × Single judge Application by a dependent 20 √ Single judge The Appeals Committee must decide on the appeal within 20 days, as opposed to 30 days in the regular procedure.551 Appeals Committees do not apply Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) with regards to applications that have been rejected as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept vis-àvis Türkiye, despite the fact that readmissions to Türkiye have been suspended since March 2020. It is only in a limited number of cases that the Appeals Committees have proceeded to an in-merits examination of the application, invoking inter alia Article 38(4) APD by consideration of the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye.552 Indicative Case law In May 2025, the 3rd Appeals Committee issued a decision with detailed reasoning and extensive reference to EU legislation and case law, which found that the Asylum Service had unlawfully rejected the asylum application of an Afghan national as inadmissible, based on the safe third country concept, by taking into account the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye.553 Specifically, in its decision, the Appeals Committee inter alia held that: “In light of the foregoing, the Commission notes that, as evidenced by the information provided, as of March 2020 and thereafter, Turkey, as a third country, which, pursuant to the aforementioned ministerial decisions, has been designated as generally safe, does not, in practice, accept the admission or readmission of the relevant applicants for international protection—third-country nationals. Consequently, in accordance with the above findings of the ECJ in its decision of October 4, 2024, in Case C-134/23, as well as those of the Council of State, as set forth in the second part of the President’s announcement of March 21, 2025, the competent Greek authorities may not reject applications for international protection as inadmissible on the basis of Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32/EU and the corresponding provision of national law, on the grounds that Turkey is a safe third country. Consequently, the contested decision, by which the applicant’s application was rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 89(1)(d) of Law 4939/2022, on the grounds that Turkey constitutes a safe third country for him, is unlawful, given that Turkey does not accept the readmission of the persons concerned—thirdcountry nationals—and, for this reason, which is validly raised, must be annulled. Consequently, the Commission finds that the applicant’s application for international protection is admissible and must be examined,furthermore, on its merits” 550 551 552 553 Article 97(d). It should be noted that the deadline for appealing against decisions issued under the provision of Article 95 Asylum Code (border procedure) is 10 days. Article 101 (d) L4636/2019, as amended by Article 25 (d) L4686/2020. Indicatively: 21st Appeals Committee, Decision 115795/2022, issued 28 February 2022, 10th Appeals Committee, Decision 224433/2022, issued 20 April 2022, 3rd Appeals Committee, Decision 345521/2022, issued 16 June 2022. 3rd Appeals Committee, Decision 270494/2025, case legally represented by GCR, summary of the decision available [in Greek] in GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report, Issue 1/2025, available in Greek https://tinyurl.com/4mmsv6n9 p 13. 118