❖ “from the examination of the case file, it appears that the possibility of executing the appellant's readmission to Türkiye was not examined when his earlier request was processed. The objectively determined inability to carry out the readmission […] constitutes a new essential element in this case, as it excludes the application of the concept of a safe third country as a ground for inadmissibility of the appeal ”. In contrast, on 12 February 2024, the 19th Appeals Committee considered that the Asylum Service had lawfully rejected the asylum application of a Syrian family with minor children as inadmissible on the ground of Türkiye as a safe third country, taking into consideration the suspension of readmissions to Türkiye and further justifying that the possibility of readmission to Türkiye falls outside its competences, as the police authorities are responsible for executing return decisions.572 Specifically, the Committee inter alia held that: ❖ “In the sense of the provision of Article 24(2)(b) of Law 3907/2011, a reason for issuing a decision to postpone removal exists in every case of objective impossibility of removal of the international protection applicant, including the case where the safe third country refuses to accept the applicant into its territory.” [para. 15] ❖ […] the facts presented in the information confirm the continuing difficulty and uncertainty in executing returns to Türkiye […]. This ongoing refusal […] reinforces the necessity to reconsider the grounds for removal, especially in the context of the applicant's right to international protection. ❖ “Because, according to what has been interpretatively accepted, the possibility of readmitting the applicants to the safe third country is determined at the time of the execution of the readmission decision by the authorities responsible for the execution of the decision […] the police authorities responsible for executing the present decision must ascertain whether it is feasible to complete the readmission process of the applicants to Türkiye within a reasonable period. In the event this is not possible, they are required to issue the applicants a certificate of postponement of removal, in accordance with Article 24(2) of Law 3907/2011. […] the Committee is required to refer the matter, due to jurisdiction, to the police authorities in this part of the decision.” ❖ “…if the authorities responsible for the execution of the decision determine that the readmission process of the applicant to the safe third country cannot be completed within a reasonable period, the applicants retain the possibility, according to the provision of Article 91(5) of Law 4939/2022, to submit a new asylum application, so that their case can be reconsidered from the beginning”. On 8 January 2024, the 10th Appeals Committee accepted the appeal of a Syrian family, whose application had been found inadmissible at first instance based on the safe third country concept.573 As noted in the decision: […] the Committee takes into account the fact that two of the applicants are minors and particularly young, as well as the fact that the second applicant is pregnant. In addition, the Committee takes into account the fact that Türkiye does not accept returns from Greece and that, according to information, the temporary protection status granted in Türkiye ceases for a particular beneficiary when he or she voluntarily leaves the country. Against this background, and in view of the requirement of cumulative fulfilment of the conditions of Article 91 of the Code, the Committee considers that in the present case the conditions set out in that Article are not met for Türkiye to be considered a safe country for the applicants. Consequently, the applicants' application for asylum was unlawfully rejected as inadmissible […]. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any other ground for inadmissibility than those provided for in Article 89 of the Code has been established. In the light of the foregoing, the contested act must be annulled, the application for asylum must be declared admissible and the substance of the case must be examined. Finally, the Committee considers that the applicants should be ordered to remain in the country pending the outcome of the present action. 572 573 GCR et al., Greek Asylum Case Law Report , Issue 1/2024, case IP/ 95731/2024 represented by Metadrasi, available in Greek here. Decision IP/11383/2024 10th Appeals Committee, summary [in Greek] in: GCR et al, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 1/2024, available here. 111