the Greek territory (borders and mainland) are examined under the safe third country concept and not on their individual circumstances and the risks they face in their country of origin (in merits examination). Moreover, and as no readmission takes places, refugees whose applications have been/are rejected as inadmissible based on the “safe third country” concept end up in a state of limbo in Greece, are exposed to a direct risk of destitution and detention, without access to an inmerit examination of their application. Following an Application for Annulment lodged by GCR and RSA before the Council of State, in February 2023, the Council of State decided to refer a question to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of article 38 of 2013/32/EU Directive. In 2022, 6,105 inadmissibility decisions were issued based on the JMD declaring Türkiye as a safe third country, out of which 3,409 first instance inadmissibility decisions and 2,696 second instance inadmissibility decisions, despite the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye. Contrary to Art. 38 (4) of the Asylum Procedure Directive, applicants are not provided with an in merits examination. As stated repeatedly by the EU Commission, ‘to the extent the applicant is not permitted to enter the territory of the safe third country, in particular if the underlying situation preventing entry persists since 2018 or 2020, the Member State shall ensure, in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive, that access to a procedure is given to the applicant’. ❖ Identification of vulnerability: the low quality of the medical and psychosocial screening process (if any) has remained a source of serious concern with regards to the identification of vulnerabilities on the islands. Vulnerabilities are often missed, with individuals going through the asylum procedure without having their vulnerability assessment completed first. No public health structures specialised in identifying or assisting torture survivors in their rehabilitation process exist across the country. Reception conditions ❖ Freedom of movement: Asylum seekers subject to the EU-Türkiye statement, i.e. arriving on Greek islands, are subject to a geographical restriction (geographical limitation) order, which obliges them not to leave the respective island until the end of the asylum procedure. The geographical limitation is applied en masse and without any prior individual assessment to all new arrivals to the Greek islands, while the regulatory framework that entered into force in January 2020 significantly limited the categories of applicants for whom the restriction can be lifted and does not necessarily amount to an immediate change in living conditions or the actual departure from the islands. In August 2022 the ECtHR granted interim measures in the case of vulnerable applicants in need of emergency medical treatment due to their condition who remained for prolonged period in Samos despite the fact that they could not receive appropriate medical treatment on the island. ❖ Reception capacity: According to the available statistics 12,239 asylum seekers were accommodated in mainland camps (March 2022) and 4,371 asylum seekers remained in Reception and Identification Centers/Closed Controlled Access Centers on the islands. 1,843 applicants were accommodated in ESTIA accommodation scheme (urban apartments) in November 2022, but the scheme was terminated at the end of 2022. ❖ Living conditions: On the mainland, the termination of the ESTIA accommodation scheme at the end of 2022 consolidates a camp-based approach to reception where applicants’ access to some of their rights (material reception conditions) entails isolation from society and where other rights, such as access to healthcare or education, cannot be effectively fulfilled. In 2022 and the beginning of 2023, complaints with regard to poor and unsanitary conditions in housing units and the overall living conditions in mainland camps were increasingly reported. The construction of high fences and the installation of surveillance systems in a number of mainland camps have increased the sentiment of isolation and exclusion. Significant concerns are reported with regard to reception conditions in the newly established Closed Control Access Centers (CCACs) on the islands. For example, as mentioned for Samos CCAC despite improvements (e.g. decongestion and the placement of containers instead of tents), Samos CCAC remains ’a hostile environment, 21