applicant has explicitly withdrawn their application and cases where the determining authority has rejected the application following its implicit withdrawal.765 The definition of “final decision” was amended in 2018. According to the new definition, as maintained in the Asylum Code, a “final decision” is a decision granting or refusing international protection: (a) taken by the Appeals Committees following an appeal, or (b) which is no longer amenable by the aforementioned appeal due to the expiry of the time limit to appeal. 766 An application for annulment can be lodged against the final decision before the Administrative Court. 767 The law sets out no time limit for lodging a subsequent application.768 Subsequent applications are lodged before Regional Asylum Offices (RAO) across the country following appointment given upon preregistration on the Ministry of Migration and Asylum’s electronic platform. 769 Accordingly, challenges with accessing the electronic platform, as inter alia observed in previous years,770 also have a direct impact on applicants’ ability to submit subsequent applications. The interruption of interpretation services during the first half of 2024, and since April 2024 with regards the asylum procedures, 771 has had a similar impact during most of 2024. Namely, as a result of the interruption, the MoMA’s online platform was not operating and registration appointments already obtained were postponed, rendering access to the procedure impossible in practice. In a joint letter, 36 civil society organisations, including GCR, called on the authorities to immediately fill the gaps in interpretation, underlining that the relevant services are funded by the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.772 By the end of the year the issue was gradually resolved and registration for appointments resumed, nonetheless after several months of interruption. A subsequent application can also be lodged by a member of a family who had previously lodged an application. In this case, the preliminary examination concerns the potential existence of evidence that justifies the submission of a separate application by the dependent person. Exceptionally, an interview is held for this purpose.773 As per data published by the MoMA,774 a total of 4,687 subsequent asylum applications – 39 of which concerned UAMs – were registered by the Asylum Service from January 2024 to December 2024. That being said, the aforementioned data does not include information on the type (i.e., first, second or further) of subsequent asylum application registered by the GAS, thus making it impossible to assess the 765 Article 1(κδ) of Asylum Code. Article 86 of the Asylum Code: an application may be considered implicitly withdrawn based on the applicant’s behavior, which may include an applicant missing his interview appointment, failing to renew his asylum seeker’s card before expiration, failing to inform the asylum service about any change of address. Implied withdrawal shall be deemed to exist in particular where it is established that the applicant: (a) has failed to respond to requests for information essential to his/her application, as referred to in Article 3 of this Code, unless he/she proves within ten (10) days that this is due to force majeure, as more specifically defined in par. 4 of Article 83 of this Code, or (b) failed to attend the personal interview or a hearing before the Appeals Committee as provided for in Articles 82 and 102 of this Code, despite having been duly summoned; or (c) fled from the place where he or she was detained or failed to comply with the alternative measures imposed; or (d) left the place where he was staying without requesting permission or informing the competent authorities, if he was obliged to do so, or left the country without obtaining permission from the competent receiving authorities, (e) has failed to comply with the obligations laid down in Article 83 of this Code, or has failed to comply with the obligation to report or other communication obligations or the obligation to produce a document which he has or ought to have in his possession and which he is able to produce; or (f) has not appeared to renew the voucher on the next business day after its expiry in accordance with Article 75, (g) fails to cooperate with the authorities in breach of the duty to cooperate, in accordance with Article 83, (h) fails to comply with a transfer decision in accordance with Article 43 in order to complete the reception and identification procedure, thereby preventing the smooth completion of the procedures for examining the application for international protection in accordance with Article 46. 766 Article 1(κδ) of Asylum Code. 767 Article 114 (1) of Asylum Code. 768 Article 94 of Asylum Code. 769 The relevant platform can be accessed at: https://bit.ly/3Jyqp44. 770 AIDA, Country report on Greece: 2023 update, available at: https://tinyurl.com/44yc8h29, p.148. 771 RSA, “Major deficiencies in the provision of interpretation services in Greece: Even asylum interviews are no longer being conducted”, 5 November 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/f7y3at5e. 772 Joint CSO Open letter: Put an end to the disruption of interpretation services still undermining asylum seekers’ rights in Greece, 1 November 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/f8pvdpua. 773 Article 94(5) of Asylum Code. 774 MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports - Overview: December 2024 - International Protection | Appendix A, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yvd7454p, tables 7c and 7f. 152