photograph of the person even in the case where full registration cannot be swiftly carried out.”15 Specifically, under the Asylum Code provisions transposing the Asylum Procedures Directive, the “lodging” of asylum applications shall be conducted “immediately” by the Responsible Registration Authorities, i.e. the Asylum Service and the RIS. 16 Where lodging cannot take place immediately, upon Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service, the Responsible Authorities shall “register” the application within three working days from its “making” and proceed to its “lodging” no later than fifteen working days from “registration”. The authorities shall issue the applicant a “document bearing their details and photograph, which is handed in upon lodging and is replaced by the asylum seeker’s card.”17 Under Greek law, Responsible Registration Authorities may require the applicant to be physically present during the “lodging” of the application; “registration” is subject to no such requirement.18 The authorities may in any event archive the case where the applicant “does not appear for the lodging on the scheduled date”, by decision of the competent Regional Asylum Office (RAO).19 Disregard of “applicant for international protection” status The Greek authorities do not consider the submission of a request for a registration appointment at the RIC of Malakasa and Diavata via the Ministry of Migration and Asylum online platform as “registration” of an application for international protection in the meaning of the Asylum Code. That is because personal details on the platform are filled in by the applicant – not by the Responsible Registration Authorities – and cannot be verified, on the one hand, while the applicant receives no document with details and photograph, on the other. Yet, the administration does not view the request for a registration appointment via the online platform as “making” of an asylum claim either, even though this act amounts an expression of intention before the Responsible Registration Authority and is the sole means of access to the asylum procedure, in accordance with the Ministry of Migration and Asylum circular. Importantly, the appointment receipt automatically generated by the online platform expressly states that said document “does not constitute a statement of intention to apply for asylum, but proof that an appointment has been scheduled to this end”. This poses impermissible “administrative formalities” on the unfettered right to “make” an asylum application, as interpreted by constant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).20 Such a practice contravenes legal standards and means that persons who wish to lodge an asylum claim and approach the Responsible Registration Authorities via the 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ombudsman, ‘Υπέρμετρη καθυστέρηση στην καταγραφή αιτήσεων διεθνούς προστασίας’, 322987/49662, 12 September 2022. Article 6(1)-(2) Asylum Procedures Directive; Article 69(1)-(2) Asylum Code. Article 69(2) Asylum Code. Article 69(6) Asylum Code. Article 69(5) Asylum Code. CJEU, C-72/22 PPU MA, 30 June 2022, para 80; C-808/18 Commission v Hungary, 17 December 2020, para 97; C-36/20 VL v Ministerio Fiscal, 25 June 2020, paras 93-94. 4 RSA REPORT │ 2023