According to practice, individuals whose appeals are rejected within the framework of the fast-track border procedure might be immediately detained upon notification of their second instance negative decision. In the past, and in particular until March 2020, this would mean that they would be at imminent risk of readmission to Türkiye. However, since readmissions remain frozen for the last three years, the detention of people with a second negative decision serves no purpose whatsoever and is considered a disproportionate measure, according to several Administrative Courts’ decisions that upheld the “objections to detention” and ordered the detention to be lifted (see the Chapter on Detention). In general, in 2024 the Asylum Service registered subsequent asylum applications despite pending applications for annulment before the Administrative Court; both procedures can run in parallel. Concerns regarding the effective access to judicial review for appellants whose appeal has been rejected within the framework of the fast-track border procedure, i.e., who remain under a geographical restriction on the Aegean Islands or are detained on the Aegean Islands following the notification of the second instance decision, were not solved by the new Asylum Code, as the relevant Article 115(2) IPA remains in force.646 More specifically, Article 115(2) IPA foresees that the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens is the competent Court for submitting legal remedies against second instance negative decisions of applications submitted on the Aegean islands. Thus, legal remedies of appellants who reside or are detained on the Aegean Islands, should be submitted by a lawyer before the Administrative Court of Athens. Considering the geographical distance and the practical obstacles (e.g., to appoint a lawyer able to submit the legal remedy in Athens), the possibility to submit legal remedies remains virtually inaccessible for most applicants.647 Furthermore, applicants have to provide a notarised power of attorney in order to appoint a legal representative, which costs approximately 100 euros depending on the notary’s fee. However, legal aid actors on the islands mention as a further impediment in the overall procedure, that most of the notaries operating on the islands refuse to provide the necessary services to the asylum applicants. This is a serious obstacle to the submission of legal remedies, especially for rejected applicants under geographical limitation on their island of arrival. Given the constraints that individuals geographically restricted or detained in the Aegean Islands face visà-vis access to legal assistance, the fact that legal aid is not foreseen by law at this stage and that annulment applications can only be submitted by a lawyer, access to judicial review for applicants receiving a second instance negative decision within the framework of the fast-track border procedure is severely hindered. 5.4. Legal assistance Indicators: Fast-track border procedure: Legal Assistance Same as regular procedure 1. Do asylum applicants have access to free legal assistance at first instance in practice? Yes With difficulty No ❖ Does free legal assistance cover: Representation in interview Legal advice 2. Do asylum applicants have access to free legal assistance on appeal against a decision in practice? Yes With difficulty No ❖ Does free legal assistance cover Representation in courts Legal advice The Asylum Code does not contain special provisions regarding free legal assistance in the fast-track border procedure. The general provisions and practical hurdles regarding legal aid are also applicable in this case (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance). State-funded legal aid is not provided for the fast-track border procedure at first instance. Therefore, legal assistance at first instance is made available only by NGOs based on capacity and areas of operation, while the scope of these services remains severely limited, bearing in mind the number of applicants subject to the fast-track border procedure. In September 2023, the Athens Bar Association issued an opinion, clarifying that lawyers providing legal advice and assistance to persons arriving in Greece and wishing to apply for international protection – as well as interpreters used to enable communication – can in no way be construed as facilitating irregular 646 647 Article 148(a) Asylum Code. See mutandis mutandis ECHR, Kaak v. Greece, Application No 34215/16, Judgement of 3 October 2019. 128