invoking, inter alia, Article 38(4) of the Procedural Directive by taking into consideration the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye.386 A characteristic example concerns the case of a single man of Syrian nationality, who entered Greece in September 2019 and submitted a first asylum application. After having received a final rejection, on the grounds of a safe third country, he submitted a subsequent asylum application on 20 October 2021. His subsequent application was rejected at first instance due to the lack of new elements, despite the fact that he had explicitly invoked Article 91(5) of the Asylum Code387 and that no readmission had taken place for over two years since he had first arrived in Greece. Following the initial rejection, the same request was also submitted with his appeal, at second instance. However, in January 2022, a final rejection was issued by the Appeals’ Committee, which stated that the applicant’s claim that he had not been readmitted to Türkiye for over two years, may be a new, but it is not a substantial, element as it is not a reason that could lead to recognition of international protection status. The Committee concluded that the legal framework on which the applicant was supposed to be readmitted was still in force. Furthermore, the Committee did not consider the period of more than two years since the applicants’ entrance in Greece as a substantial element that could overturn the initial judgement regarding the establishment of his connection to Türkiye as a safe third country. 388 In May 2022, the 4th Appeals Committee accepted the appeal of an Afghan family, composed of a couple and 5 minor children, and overturned the first instance negative decision of the Regional Asylum Office of Western Greece that had rejected their asylum application as inadmissible, based on the safe third country concept.389 The Appeals Committee noted that the family has been residing in Greece for 3 years and that during this period the children “have integrated in a social reality in Greece, attending Greek schools”. The Appeals Committee also acknowledged the inexistence of any family members or social support network in Türkiye, and concluded that “due to the situation of the appellants, it will be particularly difficult for them to contact the Turkish authorities in order to obtain the necessary documentation in order to get access to health facilities and to education”. Finally, the Appeals Committee also highlighted that women and girls are vulnerable to sexual and labour exploitation in Türkiye, putting the mother and several of the children at risk. In April 2022, the 10th Appeals Committee accepted the appeal of a single Somali woman and overturned the first instance negative decision that had rejected her asylum application as inadmissible based on the safe third country concept.390 The Appeals Committee took into consideration the applicant’s gender, the fact that she was travelling alone, and that she remained in Türkiye for 15 days, during which she didn’t search for a job nor develop any link with the country, where for 5 days she was slept on the road. In September 2022, the 8th Appeals Committee accepted the appeal of an Afghan couple, whose asylum application had been found as inadmissible at first instance by the Kos RAO based on the safe third country concept and recognised them as refugees. 391 The Appeals Committee took into consideration the asylum applications of the two minor siblings of the second appellant, who had been accepted at first instance by the same RAO. The Public Prosecutor of the Court of Kos at first instance had assigned to the second appellant the temporary real care of her siblings, pending the issuance of the decision on the custody of the two minor children. The Public Prosecutor took into consideration the report that was submitted by the RIS that affirmed the strong connection among the siblings and explicitly stated that: “it 386 387 388 389 390 391 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. Article 91 (5), transposing Article 38(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive provides that: ‘where the third country in question does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, his application shall be examined on the merits by the Competent Examination Authorities.’ 3rd Appeals Committee, No 8620/2022, 7 January 2022, para IV.4, p.23 in Equal Rights Beyond Borders, HIAS Greece and RSA, The State of the Border Procedure on the Greek Islands, September 2022, https://bit.ly/3EjqYMY FenixAid, Appeals Authority accepts the appeal of the B. family and overturns the first instance decision rejecting their asylum application as inadmissible, 23 June 2022, available in: https://bit.ly/3Ys2WaJ GCR, HIAS, RSA et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report, Issue 1/2022, p.7, 10η ΕπΠροσ 224433/2022 και 224438/2022. Decision No. 511455/5.9.2022, 8th Appeals’ Committee, represented by GCR. 88