Table 2: Readmission requests Greece – Turkey 2010-2013 Year Readmission Requests* Corresponding persons Accepted persons Executed Returns 2010 295 10,198 1,457 501 2011 276 18,758 1,552 730 2012 292 20,464 823 113 2013 24 436 78 8 Total 5,686 122,437 12,326 3,805 * Each request refers to several persons. Turkey’s overall reluctance to enforce the Protocol was part of a broader lack of cooperation in terms of border management between the two countries, which changed only recently. Limited implementation of the Readmission Protocol also meant that a significant portion of those who would be eligible for return to Turkey, had to be expelled directly to their countries of originthus, necessitating the incorporation of migration management in the foreign policy domain, bilateral agreements and appropriate funding for the realisation of return flights (See section on Returns below). By 2010, the turning point in Greece’s migration management policy, the country was accounting for the majority of apprehensions at the external borders of the Union. Due to a variety of factors, from systematic patrols to Frontex operations but primarily due to the demining of Evros, arrivals shifted to the Greek Turkish land border along the river Evros at the northeast corner of Greece. The shift was accompanied by a significant influx in arrivals that once more caught the Greek state unprepared. The majority were arrested and detained with little screening or access to asylum. On September 21, 2010, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) declared the asylum situation in Greece a “humanitarian crisis” and stressed that Greece’s lack of a functioning asylum system had “important implications for the wider EU.”9 In a way, UNHCR’s outcry proved prophetic. The situation had grown unmanageable, to the detriment of migrants and especially asylum seekers. It also began to impact the European partners, who grew concerned with those migrants who succeeded in transiting to their territory from Greece. Furthermore the decision by the ECtHR on M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece10, led member states to suspend transfers under the Dublin II mechanism. 9 See UNHCR, “UNHCR Says Asylum Situation in Greece ‘A Humanitarian Crisis,” UNHCR Briefing Notes, 21 September 2010, available at http://www.unhcr.org/4c98a0ac9.html. 10 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Judgment of the Grand Chamber on the case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Application No. 30696/09), 21 January 2011, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001103050. The Court found that the dysfunctions of the Greek asylum system and the inhuman and degrading conditions of Page 7