Application to frustrate return proceedings √ Safe country of origin X Application not as soon as possible √ False information or documents X Refusal to be fingerprinted under Eurodac √ Destruction or disposal of documents X Threat to public order or national security x Clearly unconvincing claim √ Refusal to be fingerprinted under national law √ Application to frustrate return proceedings √ Vulnerable person √ Application not as soon as possible √ Refusal to be fingerprinted under Eurodac √ Threat to public order or national security X Refusal to be fingerprinted under national law √ Vulnerable person √ As far as the Safe Third Country concept is concerned, the law specifies that unaccompanied children may only be subject to the border and fast-track border procedure if it complies with their best interests.733 Pressure on the Greek authorities to abolish the exemptions of vulnerable applicants from the fast-track border procedure and to “reduce the number of asylum applicants identified as vulnerable”, for the sake of the implementation of the EU-Türkiye statement and the increase of returns to Türkiye, has already been reported since late 2016.734 However, as underlined by FENIX “[…] serious deficiencies in the determination of asylum applicants’ vulnerabilities have been systematically observed in recent years in Greece, […] Asylum applicants often are rushed through several different phases of the asylum process before the medical and/or psychosocial examinations are completed. Frequently, asylum interviews are conducted even while the medical assessment remains pending”. 735 Within this framework, L 4540/2018, transposing the recast Reception Conditions Directive, has omitted persons suffering from PTSD from the list of vulnerable applicants. 736 The same omission was made in the subsequent adoption of both the IPA and the Asylum Code. 2.3. Prioritisation Although Article 39(5)(d) IPA provided that applications of persons belonging to vulnerable groups were examined “under absolute priority”,737 this provision was abolished by L. 4686/2020.738 3. Use of medical reports Indicators: Use of medical reports 1. Does the law provide for the possibility of a medical report in support of the applicant’s statements regarding past persecution or serious harm? Yes In some cases No 2. Are medical reports taken into account when assessing the credibility of the applicant’s statements? Yes No If the applicant consents to it, the law provides for the possibility for the competent authorities to refer them for a medical and/or psychosocial diagnosis where there are signs or claims which might indicate past persecution or serious harm. These examinations shall be free of charge and shall be conducted by specialised scientific personnel of the respective specialisation and their results shall be submitted to the competent authorities as soon as possible. Otherwise, the applicants concerned must be informed that they can undergo such examinations at their own initiative and expense. The results and reports of these 733 734 735 736 737 738 Article 95(4)(d) of the Asylum Code. European Commission, Joint Action Plan of the EU Coordinator on the implementation of certain provisions of the EU-Türkiye Statement, Annex 1 to COM(2016) 792, 8 December 2016, paras 2 and 3, available at: https://bit.ly/44e019t; Human Rights Watch, EU/Greece: Pressure to minimise numbers of migrants identified as vulnerable, 1 June 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3RqQM0F; AIDA, The concept of vulnerability in European asylum procedures, September 2017, p. 17, available at: https://bit.ly/424yGDH. FENIX – Humanitarian Legal Aid, Unrecognised Vulnerability- Greece’s systematic failure to identify and certify Victims of Torture, p. 12, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mwpxajcv. Article 20(1) L. 4540/2018, which was later abolished by Article 119 (2) of L 4636/2019 See currently in force Article 1 (lc) regarding the definition of vulnerable persons, where persons suffering from PTSD are not included. Article 39(5)(d) L.4636/2019. Article 2(3) L. 4686/2020. 147