1.3.1. Recognition rates, quality of interviews and decisions The Asylum Service issued a total of 50,117 in-merit decisions during 2024, of which 7,050 concerned the fast-track procedure.374 Decisions on the merits by the Asylum Service: 2024 Refugee status Subsidiary protection Rejected Exclusion (Article 1F Refugee Convention) 39,271 296 3,408 92 Source: Ministry of Migration and Asylum While recognition rates at first instance remain high (in terms of in-merit decisions), a number of first instance cases demonstrate the persistence of long-standing concerns vis-à-vis the “deterioration in quality at first instance”, inter alia due to the way in which interviews were conducted, the assessment of the asylum claims and/or the decisions delivered.” 375 Examples of such cases in 2024 include: ❖ The case of a single man from Egypt, which has been designated as a “safe country of origin”, whose application was rejected due to a perceived lack of credibility. Specifically, even though the applicant submitted multiple evidence in support of his personal account, the asylum service rejected his claims simply by stating that they “lack coherence, clarity, precision and plausibility” despite the fact that according to information the asylum service cited in the decision, it is confirmed that the Egyptian security forces have arrested persons with the same or similar profile as the applicant.376 ❖ The case of a single mother and her infant child, originally from Eritrea, with a habitual residence in Ethiopia, whose second asylum claim was rejected on the merits without addressing any of the claims put forward by the legal representative of the family in the written briefs submitted to the asylum service.377 ❖ The case of a single man from Egypt, who was interviewed eight days after surviving the deadly shipwreck of Pylos. His interview, which took place without a lawyer present, lasted less than an hour. He was found to be non-vulnerable, and his application was finally rejected a year after the interview took place.378 1.3.2. Interpretation The law envisages that interpretation is provided to applicants both during the registration of their asylum request as well as during their interview at first and second instance. 379 In accordance with an amendment to the IPA adopted in May 2020 as well as the codification of the relevant legislation in the Asylum Code, in case interpretation in the language of the choice of the applicant is unavailable, interpretation is provided in the official language of the country of origin or in a language that the applicant may reasonably be expected to understand.380 The asylum service uses interpreters in all dealings with the applicants, including the individual interviews. There is no relevant provision for the presence of cultural mediators. The Asylum Code does not include a provision for a specific training or guideline for interpreters. Interpretation for registrations of asylum requests, as well as interviews before the authorities is provided both by interpreters of the NGO METAdrasi and EUAA interpreters, yet challenges continued to be reported in 2024. On 14 May 2024, METAdrasi announced that following the cessation of the provision of interpretation services in the asylum procedures on 6 May, it would also move forward with the cessation of 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports - Overview: December 2024 - International Protection | Appendix A, available in Greek here, table 8a. AIDA, Country Report: Greece, 2019 Update, pp. 58-59, available here. Decision on file with the author. Decision on file with the author. Decision on file with the author. Article 82(3) Asylum Code. Article 74(3) Asylum Code. 78