covers the period “during the time limit provided for an appeal and until the notification of the decision on the appeal”.376 More precisely, according to Article 110 of the Asylum Code,377 the appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect in case of an appeal against a first instance decision rejecting the application as inadmissible: i) because another EU Member State has granted international protection status; ii) because another State, bound by Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, has taken responsibility for the examination of the application for international protection, pursuant to the Regulation iii) by virtue of the first country of asylum concept; iv) because the application is a subsequent application, in which no new elements or findings have been found during the preliminary examination; in case of an appeal against a second subsequent asylum application, and in a number of cases examined under the Accelerated Procedure. In its report “Comments on the Draft Law of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum”, the National Commission for Human Rights remarked that, while the abolition of the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection is in principle in conformity with Union law, an appeal against a return or removal decision pursuant to Article 6 par. 6 or 8 par. 3 respectively of the Directive, should automatically have a suspensive effect as this decision may expose the third country national to a real risk of treatment contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention.378 As further noted by FRA: “If a return decision were to be implemented before a final decision on international protection, this would also undermine the right to asylum (Article 18 of the Charter) and the principle of nonrefoulement (Article 19 of the Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR) as interpreted by the CJEU and the ECtHR in their respective case law. Closely connecting or merging the two procedural steps must not lead to the reduction of safeguards which are necessary to ensure that Articles 18 and 19 of the Charter are not circumvented.”379 The practice of the Appeals Committees in 2022 and 2023 showed that the requirement of a separate request for suspensive effect under Article 104(2) IPA and Article 110(2) Asylum Code has introduced a superfluous procedural step, as the Committees systematically dismiss requests for suspensive effect as having no object (άνευ αντικειμένου), after having issued a positive or negative decision on the merits of the appeal, since the abovementioned application is examined on the date of the hearing of the case and the relevant ruling is included in the decision issued upon the appeal.. In 2021, 4,653 requests were submitted to the Appeals Authority to stay in the country until the secondinstance decision has been issued. During the reference period, the Appeals Authority issued 4,476 second instance decisions rejecting requests for suspensive effect and ordering the removal of the appellant.380 Relevant data for 2022 and 2023 was not provided. Procedure before the Appeals Authority 376 377 378 379 380 Article 104(1) IPA and Article 110(1) Asylum Code. Article 104 L. 4636/2019 as amended by Article 20 L. 4825/2021 and Article 110 Asylum Code. National Commission for Human Rights, Comments on the Draft Law of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum, July 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3v6QkZ2. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), The recast Return Directive and its fundamental rights implications, FRA Opinion – 1/2019 [Return], 10 January 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3jk4aC0. Information provided by the Appeals Authority, March 2022. 81