Türkiye have been suspended since March 2020 is not considered as a new and substantial element.’610 In these cases, the applicants were expected to provide new and substantial elements as to why Türkiye could not be considered a safe third country for them, albeit in the end, once the application was found admissible based on the new elements provided, the final judgment of the Asylum Service invoked the lapse of the one-year period as the basis on which the admissibility of the request was judged, in terms of the application of the safe third country concept.611 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 under the light of and the case law of the CJEU.612 To this regard, it should also be also mentioned that the lack of a “methodology” provided by national law, could render the provision non-applicable.613 In practice, as it appears from first instance inadmissibility decisions issued to Syrian nationals, to the knowledge of GCR, the Asylum Service holds 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.614 Respectively, the Appeals Committees find that the connection criteria can be considered 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, 615 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 by 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 month and two weeks respectively. As mentioned above, as far as GCR is aware, a few second instance decisions issued in 2022 regarding Afghan and Syrian applicants examined under the safe third country concept have found that the safe third country requirements, including in some cases the connection criteria, were not fulfilled. 616 3. First country of asylum The “first country of asylum” concept is a ground for inadmissibility (see Admissibility Procedure and FastTrack Border Procedure). 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 RSA, The state of the border procedure on the Greek islands, September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3oPTIZ0, 22. Ibid, 23-24. CJEU, Case C-564/18, LH v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal, 19 March 2020; see RSA, Comments on the Reform of the International Protection Act, https://bit.ly/3dLzGUt, 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, 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 Template Decision in AIDA, Country Report Türkiye, 2017 Update, March 2018. 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. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), HIAS Greece and RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report 1/2021, December 2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3VeqUW4, Greek Asylum Case Law Report 1/2022, June 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3oLmN7P, Greek Asylum Case Law Report 2/2022, December 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3Ldr3EB. 138