Moreover, in 2024, a significant number of asylum applicants continued to report that, during their interview, they were not granted sufficient time and, as a result, their asylum claims were not examined thoroughly. An additional issue relates to the fact that the caseworkers do not follow a standard procedure on the examination of allegations of pushbacks when such allegations arise during the asylum interview. Particularly, the RAOs had no consistent practice regarding any further examination of allegations of pushbacks that arise during the asylum interview. The caseworkers had discretion as to whether to devote time during the interview and ask further questions regarding the reported “pushback” incident by the asylum applicant. According to lawyers, in certain cases the caseworkers disregard these allegations, claiming that they are not relevant to the interview, while other caseworkers proceed to further investigate the incidents by asking focused questions. Furthermore, it is still unclear how the EUAA caseworkers deal with information about criminal acts and violations of EU and international law allegedly committed by other actors at the EU’s external borders that are brought to their attention during the asylum interview. The new EUAA Complaints Mechanism as regards complaints against EUAA personnel has been recently established under the responsibility of the newly appointed EUAA Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO).622 However, complaints can only be submitted by persons directly affected (or their representatives) by the actions of asylum support team members, when they consider that their fundamental rights have been violated due to an EUAA expert’s actions. 623 This is stipulated in the EUAA Regulation in such wording and the scope for the Complaints Mechanism can therefore not be broadened to include other instances of violations. For any other violations of fundamental rights not committed by members in Asylum Support Teams (ASTs), the EUAA is working in parallel on developing an escalation mechanism which would allow for an appropriate escalation process for situations when Agency staff becomes aware of any serious violations of fundamental rights or international protection obligations committed by a host Member State.624 5.3. Appeal Indicators: Fast-track border procedure: Appeal Same as regular procedure 1. Does the law provide for an appeal against the decision in the accelerated procedure? Yes No ❖ If yes, is it Judicial Administrative ❖ If yes, is it suspensive Yes Some grounds No A total of 12,039 appeals were filed in 2024. Of these, 11,244 were filed on the mainland and the remaining (795) on the islands.625 Main countries of origin in 2024 were Egypt (25.7%), Pakistan (11.3%), Sierra Leone (7.5%), Syria (6.9%) and Somalia (5.8%). Changes in the Appeals Committees As noted in the Regular procedure - Appeal, Article 148 Asylum Code626 provides that the Appeals Committees under the Independent Appeals Authority, comprised of administrative judges, may operate in a single or three-member composition. On 3 December 2024, the Greek Council of State declared that the single composition of the Independent Appeals Committees in asylum procedures is unconstitutional (against Article 89 (2) of the Constitution).627 The publication of the decision –which will also give effect to the consequences of unconstitutionality– is expected in April 2025. 622 623 624 625 626 627 See: https://euaa.europa.eu/complaints-mechanism. Ibid. EUAA, Management Board Decision No 166 of 25 September 2024 on the Fundamental Rights Strategy 20242028, available here. MoMA, Report A December 2024 Appendix A, available here. Previously Article 116 IPA. Greek Council of State, Announcement of 3rd December 2024 by the President of the Council of State, available here. 124