a violation of the principle of non-refoulement are also applicable to appeals in the context of fast-track border procedures. Suspensive effect Appeals before the Appeals Committees no longer have automatic suspensive effect as a general rule. The automatic suspensive effect of appeals depends on the type of decision challenged by the applicant (see Admissibility Procedure: Appeal and Accelerated Procedure: Appeal). With regard to applications rejected at first instance within the framework of the fast-track border procedure, the Asylum Code states, that a derogation from automatic suspensive effect of appeals can only be ordered provided that the individual benefits from the necessary assistance of an interpreter, legal assistance and at least one week to prepare and file a relevant application before the Appeals Committee reasoning why he/she should be granted with the right to remain in the Greek territory.572 It should be noted that Article 110(3) Asylum Code has incorrectly transposed Art 46(7) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive. Instead of cross-referring to Article 110(2) Asylum Code on the categories of appeals stripped of automatic suspensive effect, Article 110(3) Asylum Code provides that “the possibility to derogate from the right to remain” may be applied in border procedures subject to requirements including interpretation, legal assistance and at least one week. Accordingly, the law incorrectly suggests that the derogation from the right to remain on the territory may be imposed in any decision taken in a border procedure, insofar as the above guarantees are complied with in practice, the derogation from the right to remain has been generally applied to the fast-track border procedure on the Eastern Aegean islands, including in “safe third country” cases which should have suspensive appeals according to the law.573 In any case, as it has been already mentioned, where a separate application for suspension of removal is submitted in parallel with the appeal, the Appeals Committees proceed with the examination of the suspension application on the same day that the appeal is being examined. Judicial review The general provisions regarding judicial review, as amended in 2018 and 2019, are also applicable within the framework of the fast-track border procedure and concerns raised with regard to the effectiveness of the remedy are equally valid (see Regular Procedure: Appeal). Thus, among others, an application for annulment before the Administrative Court does not have automatic suspensive effect, even if combined with an application for suspension. Suspensive effect is only granted by a relevant decision of the Court. This judicial procedure before the Administrative Courts is not accessible to asylum seekers without legal representation. 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 relatively the Chapter on Detention). In general, 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 572 573 Article 110(3) Asylum Code. According to input provided by RSA. 123