Circular, the fact that readmissions to Türkiye have been suspended since March 2020 is not considered as a new and substantial element.’805 In such cases, applicants were expected to provide new and substantial elements as to why Türkiye could not be considered a safe third country for them. In many of them, Asylum Service found the application admissible based on the new elements provided, taking into account that in the lapse of the one-year period between the decision of inadmissibility and the submission of the subsequent application, the applicant was staying in Greece in a way that a connection to Türkiye could no longer be established.806 Moreover, as no provision on the methodology to be followed by the authorities in order to assess whether a country qualifies as a “safe third country” for an individual applicant, the compatibility of national legislation with Art. 38 of the Directive 2013/32/EU should be assessed, in particular in light of the case law of the CJEU.807 In this regard, it should also be also mentioned that the lack of a “methodology” provided by national law, could render the provision non-applicable.808 In practice, as it appears from first instance inadmissibility decisions issued to Syrian nationals, to the knowledge of GCR, the Asylum Service considers that the fact that an applicant would be subject to a temporary protection status upon return is sufficient in itself to establish a connection between the applicant and Türkiye, even in cases of very short stays and in the absence of other links.809 The Appeals Committees considers that the connection criteria can be established by taking into consideration inter alia the “large number of persons of the same ethnicity” living in Türkiye, the “free will and choice” of the applicants to leave Türkiye and “not organise their lives in Türkiye”, “ethnic and/or cultural bonds” without further specification, the proximity of Türkiye to Syria, and the presence of relatives or friends in Türkiye without effective examination of their status and situation there. Additionally, in line with the 2017 rulings of the Council of State,810 transit from a third country, in conjunction with inter alia the length of stay in that country or the proximity of that country to the country of origin, is also considered in second instance decisions as sufficient for the fulfilment of the connection criteria. It should be recalled that in the case presented before the Council of State where the Court found that the connection criteria were fulfilled, that applicants had stayed in Türkiye for periods of one and a half month and one month respectively. Greek courts have clarified, for instance, that such an assessment cannot be limited to mere reference to the number of refugees present in the country or the duration of the person’s stay prior to arrival in Greece.811 Yet, asylum authorities at first and second instance frequently use a standard text concluding on the existence of a connection between an applicant and Türkiye, without having conducted any individualised assessment of their personal circumstances. Other decisions adopt widely diverging and at times too broad interpretations of factors that may establish a sufficient connection.812 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 RSA et al., The state of the border procedure on the Greek islands, September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/46PpMfC, p. 22. Ibid., pp. 23-24. CJEU, Case C-564/18, LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal, 19 March 2020; see RSA, RSA Comments on the Reform of the International Protection Act, https://bit.ly/3dLzGUt, p. 14. CJEU, Case C-528/15, Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v. Salah Al Chodor, 15 March 2017; see RSA, RSA Comments on the Reform of the International Protection Act, idem. Note that the decision refers to the applicant’s ‘right to request an international protection status’, even though persons under temporary protection are barred from applying for international protection, see AIDA, Country Report: Türkiye, 2017 Update, March 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/4aP9k23, p. 125. Council of State, Decision 2347/2017, 22 September 2017, para 62; Decision 2348/2017, 22 September 2017, para 62. Note the dissenting opinion of the Vice-President of the court, stating that transit alone cannot be considered a connection, since there was no voluntary stay for a significant period of time. See also EDAL, Greek Council of State, Decision no 2347/2017, 22 September 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3QibK0Z; EDAL, Greek Council of State on Turkey as a safe third country and aspects of the Greek Asylum procedure, 22 September 20177, available at: https://bit.ly/3UcgPJd; Joint decisions 2347/2017 and 2348/2017, 2347/2017 and 2348/201, Greece: Council of State, 22 September 2017, https://bit.ly/44uHAxr. Administrative Court of Athens, 103/2023, 31 January 2023, para 9. For example, 1st IAC, 310227/2022, 1 June 2022, para 4.3; 6th IAC, 5892/2020, 27 May 2020, p. 25; 8th IAC, 103648/2023, 20 February 2023, pp. 8-9; 142176/2022, 11 March 2022, para 10; 458313/2021, 15 December 2021, para 10; 9th IAC, 288224/2021, 4 October 2021, p. 11; 13th IAC, IP/113682/2023, 13 September 2023, 167