the time for the referral of a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, this judgment cannot be regarded as a reliable case-law, be it at the national, European or international level, which would justify transposing it into Greek law. It should be noted that among the issues raised in the Plenary Session, the issue of the applicant's safe connection with the third country was of particular concern as well as whether the applicant's simple transit through that country was sufficient in this respect, in combination with certain circumstances, such as the duration of their stay there and the proximity to their country of origin. The compatibility of Article 91(1)(f) Asylum Code with the EU acquis should be further assessed, in particular taking into consideration the CJEU Decision in case C-564/18 of 19 March 2020, in which the Court ruled that “the transit of the applicant from a third country cannot constitute as such a valid ground in order to be considered that the applicant could reasonably return in this country”. Article 91(1)(f) of the Asylum Code includes particularly broad, generic and often ambiguous factors that are arguably liable to lead to an arbitrary application of the safe third country concept to an individual applicant. This is particularly the case in relation to “cultural ties”, “broader community” or “geographical proximity to the country of origin” which could virtually apply indiscriminately to all refugees originating from a particular country. Any factors pointing to a connection with a country should be read with thorough consideration of the individual circumstances of the applicant. 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. 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.868 Greek Asylum Service practice with regards to Türkiye It is worth noting that, since October 2021, applications for international protection of asylum applicants originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia are deemed admissible if a period of more than one year has elapsed since the applicants’ transit from the third country and the applicants have not maintained relations (economic, social, etc.) with that country during that period. Hence, it is considered that the precondition of the link as per Article 91(1)(f) of the Asylum Code is no longer fulfilled and as such it would be not reasonable for the applicants to return to that country. The aforementioned 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 868 869 870 RSA, The concept of “safe third country” – legal standards and implementation in the Greek asylum system, 20 February 2024, available here. 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. 168