admissibility decisions are based on internal Guidelines of the Asylum Service issued in October 2021, which to date have nevertheless not been made public. As regards subsequent applications lodged upon rejection of a first application on safe third country grounds, the Ministry of Migration and Asylum issued a Circular on 6 July 2021, as per which: ‘Specifically, for those applicants entering from Türkiye, the invocation of new and substantial elements must relate exclusively as foreseen in the law and the EU-Türkiye Joint Statement, to the finding on the initial application as to whether Türkiye –as the country of transit of the applicant– is safe or not for them in accordance with the national and European legislation. In the absence of any new and substantial elements as provided above, the subsequent application shall be rejected by the competent examination authorities as inadmissible, in accordance with [Article 94(4) of the Asylum Code].” According to the above Circular, the fact that readmissions to Türkiye have been suspended since March 2020 is not considered as a new and substantial element.’869 In such cases, applicants are expected to provide new and substantial elements as to why Türkiye cannot be considered a safe third country for them. In many of them, the GAS 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. 870 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. 871 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 an effective examination of their status and situation there. Additionally, in line with the 2017 rulings of the Council of State, 872 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 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. 873 Yet asylum authorities at both 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 869 870 871 872 873 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. 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. GCR, HIAS, RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report Issue 2/2024, 9 η ΕπΠροσ ΙΡ/129467/2024 . 9 η ΕπΠροσ ΙΡ/129654/2024 , both available in Greek here. 186