Appeals Committee took into consideration that the applicants: “(i) despite having stayed in Turkey for a period of approximately five (5) months, they were only able to work for a few days and without receiving any payment; (ii) they do not have a family or friends support network in Turkey, which could assist them on their return; and (i) although they have attempted to apply for international protection, the Turkish authorities have refused to receive the application, the Commission considers that, in the applicants' case, the legally required link is not established on the basis of which it would be reasonable for them to go to Turkey [...] In view of required cumulative fulfilment of each of the criteria laid down in the law, the Turkey cannot be regarded as a safe third country for the applicants.” 3.4. Legal assistance Indicators: Admissibility Procedure: Legal Assistance Same as regular procedure 1. Do asylum seekers have access to free legal assistance during admissibility procedures in practice? Yes With difficulty No v Does free legal assistance cover: Representation in interview Legal advice 2. Do asylum seekers have access to free legal assistance on appeal against an inadmissibility decision in practice? Yes With difficulty No v Does free legal assistance cover Representation in courts Legal advice Legal Assistance in the admissibility procedure does not differ from the one granted for the regular procedure (see section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance). Thus, asylum seekers do not have access to free legal assistance during the admissibility procedures at first instance but only at second instance.508 The lack of legal assistance has proven particularly problematic, especially for cases falling under the JMD designating Türkiye as a safe third country. While legal aid services are provided at second instance, meaning the submission of an appeal against the first instance negative decision on admissibility, the ten-day deadline for the submission of the appeal following the notice of an inadmissibility decision is not, in any case, adequate for asylum applicants, nor for the registry lawyers to be properly prepared for the appeal procedure and prepare an effective representation before the Appeals Authority. 3.5. Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of protection in another Member State According to Dublin III Regulation, a Member State may send a take back request (Articles 18(1b-d) and 20(5)) asking another Member State to take responsibility for an applicant who applied for international protection within the reporting country but had already applied in the first Member State or because the other Member State previously accepted responsibility through a take charge request. Data on outgoing “take back” requests and relevant positive decisions per Member State have not been provided by the MoMA, even though GCR has requested it. Instead, following the latest such request sent by GCR in January 2024, the MoMA replied by referring GCR to the Ministry’s website “and in particular at the link https://migration.gov.gr/statistika/ [where] the monthly newsletters are published, alongside relevant annexes, which include summary and detailed statistical data on the work of the First Reception Service, the Asylum Service and the Appeals Authority […]”. Yet a closer look at the public sources referred by the MoMA highlights that the specific data is not available. 508 Art. 76 of the Asylum Code. 108