The project is co-funded by the European Union and the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction under the European Migration Network

Transcription

1 The project is co-funded by the European Union and the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction under the European Migration Network Page 1 of 31

2 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices The study was implemented by the Institute of International Relations (IIR) of Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences. Authors of the study: Maria Daniella Marouda, Assistant Professor, International and European Studies, Panteion University, Member of the Naturalization Commission, Decentralized Administration of Crete. Dr. Eleni Koutsouraki, Université Paris II, Panthéon Assas Panteion University. Dr. Vasiliki Saranti, Part-time Lecturer, National Police Academy Maria Papaioannou, Dr., Panteion University. The authors wish to thank for their valuable comments and remarks the members of the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee: Mr. Georgios Nerantzis, Mr. Ioannis Avranas and Ms. Athina Balopoulou. The authors wish also to thank for their support the members of the GR EMN NCP: Mr. Michail Kosmidis (Deputy member of GR EMN NCP Steering Board Team), Ms. Eleni Siopi and Ms. Peny Tsipa (Directorate for Migration Policy, Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction). Page 2 of 31

3 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices The European Migration Network (EMN) was established in 2003, originally as a preparatory action of the European Commission, with the aim of providing the European Commission and the Member States with objective, reliable, comparable and up-to-date data on migration and asylum, to build policymaking in the European Union and hence their national policies in these areas. Subsequently, the Council of the EU in 2008, with the. 381/2008/EK Judgment founded the EMN, as permanent structure that will operate within the European Commission, with the participation of member states in order achieve these goals. More information on the EMN and its work can be found on the website or on the Greek website Contact data with the Greek Focal Point of the European Migration Network: Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction General Secretariat for Population and Social Cohesion General Directorate for Citizenship and Migration Policy Directorate of Immigration Policy Department of Immigration Policy Evangelistrias Athens Tel /54/57 emn@ypes.gr 2016, Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction. All rights reserved. This study was conducted with the financial support of the European Union and the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction, within the scope the European Migration Network. The research contents are of the sole responsibility of the author. In any case, the European Union and the Ministry of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction cannot be held liable for any use of the information made by third parties. Page 3 of 31

4 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices EMN FOCUSSED STUDY 2016 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: Obstacles, challenges and good practices Top-line Factsheet (National Contribution) National contribution (one page only) Overview of the National Contribution introducing the study and drawing out key facts and figures from across all sections of the Focussed Study, with a particular emphasis on elements that will be of relevance to (national) policymakers. This study constitutes the Greek contribution to the study of the European Migration Network focusing at comparative research of challenges and best practices regarding the return of rejected asylum seekers from the EU Member States. Summarizing the most important research data for Greece, it must first be noted that the policies and measures adopted for return of third-country nationals do not distinguish between rejected asylum seekers and the general category of those who do not have a right of residence in the country and a return decision has been issued against them. Moreover, the Hellenic Police, which is the responsible authority for returns, does not have available figures for the total number and the specific characteristics of rejected asylum seekers with return decisions issued in recent years. Therefore, it is impossible to draw any conclusion about the effectiveness of this process. The general rule in Greece, is that if an application for international protection and the appeal against the first negative decision are rejected, rejected asylum seekers are obliged to leave Greece. If, however, they submit an application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee before the Administrative Court of Appeal it is possible to request the suspension of the decision in order not to be returned. In addition, the law provides for the possibility of issuing administrative decisions for the postponement of the expulsion, if the return would constitute a violation of the principle of non-refoulement; if the return decision has been suspended following an appeal; due to the physical or mental situation of third country nationals in view of return as well as for technical reasons, such as lack of transport capacity, or impossibility of removal due to identification failure. This decision is valid for six months and may be renewed. Rejected asylum seekers have access to some social rights under conditions. Besides the general challenges for returning third countries nationals, which are detailed in the annual report of the European Migration Network, it is worth noting that Greece faces an additional challenge. As we were informed by representatives of the Hellenic Police Headquarters in the context of this study, there are financial and administrative constrains in the procurement procedure with return services providers. Therefore, in some cases returns do not take place due to failure of the Greek State to cover the costs of transport or due to expiration of contracts with service providers and lengthy procedures applied for their renewal. Executive Summary (Synthesis Report) Synthesis Report (up to three pages) Executive Summary of Synthesis Report: this will form the basis of an EMN Inform, which will have EU and National policymakers as its main target audience. Page 4 of 31

5 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices Section 1: Overview of the national situation [Maximum 2 pages] This section of the Synthesis Report will provide information on the national situation and the scale of the problem, i.e. the number of rejected asylum seekers in comparison to the number of rejected asylum seekers effectively returned (voluntary and enforced). It sets out the context for the Study and the measures that can be taken during the asylum procedure as well as the approaches to rejected asylum seekers. It will be drafted on the basis of data available from Eurostat and complemented by national data provided by Member States. Q1. To what extent is the non-return of rejected asylum seekers considered a major issue in your Member State? Is the return of rejected asylum seekers a national policy priority? Please provide qualitative evidence e.g. from reports, political debate and media reports (quantitative evidence is requested in subsequent questions so should not be covered here) The high pressure put on Greece by the massive arrivals of migrants and refugees has inevitably redefined its priorities in addressing mixed migration flows. At the moment, priority is given to the reception and identification procedures, asylum procedures and the implementation of the Joint EU-Turkey Statement of March 18 th, It is noted that the latter concerns the readmission of irregular migrants and rejected asylum seekers from the Greek islands to Turkey and not to their home countries. However, according to the National Action Plan on Asylum and Migration (2012), the Greek government seeks to "send a strong message to third-country nationals wishing to enter Greece illegally and warn all immigrants who do not fall under international protection that they will be arrested, detained and returned to their countries of origin" (p. 53). With regard to the present study, representatives of the Greek Police Headquarters argued that this policy has not ceased to apply, despite the challenges in its implementation. Page 5 of 31

6 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices Q2. Please complete the Excel document in Annex 1 (providing information also on the metadata) if you have national statistics available on: - The total number of rejected asylum seekers who were issued an enforceable return decision in disaggregated by sex; 1 - The number of rejected asylum seekers who were effectively returned from your Member State to third countries in (if possible disaggregated by sex and by type of return (voluntary / assisted voluntary / forced). The table requests information on the total number of rejected asylum seekers returned, as well as data for the top ten citizenships of rejected asylum seekers in your Member State in the period disaggregated by sex. Please note that in some Member States (e.g. UK) data is available on asylum seekers returned, but this does not distinguish between rejected asylum seekers and others. If this is the case in your Member State, please provide the data for asylum seekers returned, but please make the scope and nature of the data clear. Q3. Please provide national estimates, disaggregated by sex, of (a) the share of rejected asylum seekers out of the total number of TCNs issued a return decision in and (b) the share of rejected asylum seekers issued a return decision who were effectively returned, by completing the table below and indicating whether the share is: a) Between 90 to 100% b) Between 51 to 90% c) Between 31 to 50% d) Less than 30% These estimates may be made available through national studies, or may be identified through consultation with relevant national authorities for the purpose of this study. For every estimate, please indicate in the final column the source of the estimate and where possible the method used. Year % rejected asylum seekers out of total no. TCNs issued a return decision % rejected asylum seekers out of total no. TCNs effectively returned Source / method of the estimate Male Female Total Male Female Total As outlined in section 2.1 of this Common Template, this group includes rejected asylum seekers who may yet be able to appeal the decision on their asylum case, but who are nonetheless obliged to return under return legislation. Page 6 of 31

7 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices Q4a. If available, please provide any national estimates on the total number of rejected asylum seekers disaggregated by sex who, despite having been imposed a return decision, continue to reside in your Member State during the period because they could not be returned (see also sections 3 and 4)? Year # rejected asylum seekers imposed an enforceable return decision who continue to reside in the Member State Source / method of the estimate Male Female Total Q4b. Please provide, if possible, a breakdown of the statistics described in 4a by reason for non-return. If statistics are not available disaggregated by reason, please describe any qualitative evidence of the main reasons in your Member State for the non-return of rejected asylum seekers described in 4a. Reasons may include the successful or on-going appeal of the asylum decision, the successful or on-going appeal of the return decision, problems with readmission, returnee resistance, etc. Please note that more detailed questions on challenged to return are outlined in section 4. As it has been mentioned in the national annual policy report on asylum and migration of 2014, the main reasons for not returning illegally staying third country nationals, including rejected asylum seekers concerns difficulties in their identification identification of their nationality, lack of consular cooperation for issuing travel documents, non-implementation of existing readmission agreements (both EU and bilateral), the exploitation of the previous asylum system s examination - before the operation of the Asylum Service (submission of abusive asylum applications, lengthy examination periods etc.). Section 2: Member States policies and measures vis-à-vis rejected asylum seekers at the point of rejection [Maximum 10 pages] The purpose of this section is to describe at what stage of the asylum procedure an asylum seeker can be issued an enforceable return decision and what happens when the enforceable return decision is issued. SECTION 2.1: HOW ASYLUM DECISIONS TRIGGER THE ISSUANCE OF THE RETURN DECISION Q5 At what stage in the asylum decision-making procedure can an enforceable return decision (i.e. one that can lead to the return of the asylum seeker) be issued? Please select one of the following options: a) after the first instance decision (all applications for international protection); b) after the first instance decision (only for applications for international protection considered unfounded e.g. if they are lodged by an applicant from a safe country of origin); c) after some appeals on the asylum decision have been lodged, but before all possibilities for appeal on the asylum decision have been exhausted; Χ d) only after all asylum appeals have been exhausted; e) under other circumstances (please describe). Page 7 of 31

8 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices The return decision is issued when a negative asylum decision becomes final, namely the decision on second instance issued by the Appeal Committee. If the asylum seeker files an application for the annulment of the appeal decision before the Administrative Court of Appeal, the enforcement of the return decision is suspended only if an application to suspend its enforcement is submitted by the appellant and accepted by the same Court. According to the jurisprudence of the Hellenic Council of State (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias) (CoS 338/1995, 475/1995, 2478/1997) "the Administration upon notification that a suspension request is submitted in connection to the annulment of an administrative act before the Court, shall, on the basis of the principles of good administration, abstain from the immediate execution of the administrative act until the Court has addressed the suspension request." Q6. If the return decision can enter into force before all asylum appeals have been exhausted, how often, in practice does this lead to the applicant being returned? (e.g. in all cases, most cases, some cases, rarely, never)? In case the suspension request is rejected by the Court, there is no legal obstacle for the implementation of the return decision. However, due to the lack of any statistical data there is no concrete information on the practical implementation of return decisions in the absence of an application before the Administrative Court of Appeal or when the suspension request is rejected. Q7a. Is the authority responsible for issuing the return decision in your Member State the same as the authority who is responsible for making decisions on the application for asylum? / If no, how do these authorities coordinate and communicate to ensure that asylum decisions trigger the return procedure at the right time? Please describe any coordination arrangements and how they work in practice.. The competent authorities to examine asylum requests are the Regional Asylum Offices, the Independent Asylum Units and the Mobile Asylum Units (art. 34 item 14, Law 4375/2016), whereas the return decision is issued by the Police Authorities according art. 21, Law 3907/2011. Upon decision of the Appeal Committee, the documents folder is handed over to the competent service of the Hellenic Police, while the decision is posted in the electronic database (called Alkyoni ) and becomes accessible to all relevant services. Q 7b. When a decision on an asylum application triggers a return decision, how soon after the rejection is the return decision issued? Please select among the following options: a) The return decision is issued at the same time the decision rejecting the asylum application enters into force/becomes executable. b) The return decision is issued within 24 hours of the rejection decision entering into force/becoming executable. c) The return decision is issued within a week of the rejection decision entering into force/becoming executable. d) The return decision is issued within a month of the rejection decision entering into force/becoming executable. Please provide further details on current practice in your Member State, in particular if not covered under the options above specific time limit is observed. Page 8 of 31

9 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices Q8. In your Member State, is it possible to use the information that is obtained from the applicant in the course of the asylum procedure for the purposes of facilitating return? / If yes, is such information regularly used? (for example, documentation and declarations that were made as part of the asylum claim, family connections stated, etc. may be used after a return decision has entered into force as supporting evidence for the purpose of establishing identity and obtaining travel documents to the relevant (consular) authorities of the third-country). Under national law, the disclosure of information gained by the applicant in the course of the asylum procedure by the competent asylum authorities to other relevant Greek authorities is not precluded. However, the disclosure of such information to the authorities of the country of origin is strictly forbidden in accordance with international law. There is no data on whether the above-mentioned information is actually used in practice by the Greek Police for the implementation of a return decision. SECTION 2.2: IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES FOR REJECTED ASYLUM SEEKERS REQUIRED TO RETURN Q9. What are the immediate consequences for the rejected asylum seeker of the return decision entering into force? Please answer this question by completing the table below. Please note that similar information was requested in the Ad-Hoc Query on the right of residence provided for TCNs to whom international protection application has been rejected requested 30th December Please review your Member State to this AHQ (if completed) and provide only updated information here. Page 9 of 31

10 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices Table 2.1: The immediate consequences for the rejected asylum seeker of the return decision entering into force Questions according to law as carried out in practice Provide here evidence to suggesting this contributes to encouraging or deterring return Accommodation Can the applicant stay in reception centres once rejected? /no If you stated yes above, please indicate for how long after receiving the return decision they can stay in the reception centre (e.g. X days or until the return decision is enforced and the individual returns ). In open temporary reception facilities for third country nationals or stateless persons under return procedure, expulsion or whose removal has been postponed (Law 4375/2016). It is not specified in Law 4375/2016. It is not known. If you stated no above, are they accommodated elsewhere (e.g. special open return centres) or elsewhere? /no and for yes, briefly describe accommodation service provided Employment Are rejected applicants entitled to access / continue accessing the labour market? / If yes, please indicate for how long after receiving the return decision they can continue to work (e.g. X days or until the return decision is enforced and the individual Until the voluntary departure period is expired. Page 10 of 31

11 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices returns ) If yes, please describe any specific conditions attached to their employment Welfare Are rejected applicants entitled to receive any social benefits? If yes, please briefly describe what these benefits are * * If the Administrative Court of Appeal grants suspension of the secondary negative decision until the examination of the writ of annulment, rejected asylum seekers continue to receive the same social benefits to those they had access before the rejection of their appeal by the Appeals Committee. In cases of disability of 67% and above, a disability allowance is granted. The law also provides for an allowance for unprotected children. (see te) (te: Unfortunately decisions by the Administrative Court of Appeal are rare and the vast majority of rejected applicants are not entitled to receive any social benefits). The relevant provisions apply only if the Administrative Court of Appeal grants suspension of the secondary negative decision. for the disability allowance. for the unprotected children s allowance. If yes, please indicate for how long after receiving the return decision they can continue to receive the benefits (e.g. X days or until the return decision is enforced and the individual returns ) Healthcare Are rejected applicants still entitled to healthcare? /no Until the examination of the writ of annulment by the Administrative Court of Appeal., if they have a decision of postponement of their return in accordance with art. 24 par. 4 of. Page 11 of 31

12 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices Law 3907/2011. In particular, under the Law 4368/2016 (parallel program) a Joint Ministerial Decision (JMD) was signed on "Settings for ensuring the access to the Public Health System to those lacking social security." The JMD ensures free access to all public health facilities (including to university hospitals) and healthcare to citizens lacking social security by minimizing the bureaucratic procedures. The benefits guaranteed by the JMD are equivalent to the benefits of EKPY Regulation (nursing services, diagnostics, medical devices, etc.). The healthcare card for foreigners is valid for six months (one year for pregnant women). Does it include all healthcare or only emergency healthcare? Education Are rejected applicants still entitled to participate in educational programmes and/or training? / no It includes all healthcare, but there is an expressed intention to launch relevant policies. In practice it only applies in emergency care units If yes, please indicate for how long after receiving the return decision they can continue to participate in educational activities (e.g. X days or until the return decision is enforced and the individual returns ) Other? Are any other measures taken which are Page 12 of 31

13 Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: obstacles challenges and good practices relevant to mention here? Please describe Page 13 of 31

14 Q10. When a rejected asylum seeker receives an enforceable return decision, what measures does the Member State take to enforce the return decision and prevent absconding (e.g. regular reporting)? According to Article 22 of Law 3907/2011, the return decision shall provide an adequate period for voluntary departure. The competent authorities for issuing the return decision may impose throughout the period of voluntary departure obligations in order to avoid the risk of absconding, such as regular reporting to the authorities, the deposit of an adequate financial guarantee, the submission of relevant documents or the obligation to stay at a certain place. SECTION 2.3 POSSIBILITIES FOR APPEALING THE RETURN DECISION Q11. Are asylum seekers who have received an enforceable return decision able to lodge an appeal on the decision, before being returned? / If yes, under what conditions can the appeal be lodged?. The return decision may be appealed in conformity with Article 77 of Law 3386/2005 within five days of its notification. The submission of the appeal entails the suspension of the return decision. A decision is issued within three (3) working days. In case of a negative appeal decision, there may be submitted an application for its annulment before the three member Administrative Court of First Instance. Q12. How frequently does an appeal on the return decision prevent the return of rejected asylum seekers (e.g. in all cases, most cases, some cases, rarely, never)? Do rejected asylum seekers appealing their return have a better chance of a positive decision on their return appeal than other third-country nationals required to return appealing the return decision? / (and please explain your response) There is no information on the practice followed due to lack of relevant data. SECTION 2.4 POSSIBILITIES FOR LODGING SUBSEQUENT ASYLUM APPLICATIONS Q13. Are asylum seekers who have received an enforceable return decision able to lodge a subsequent application in your Member State, before being returned? / If yes, under what conditions can the subsequent application be lodged 2. The legislation does not impose any specific requirements for the submission of a subsequent application. As indicated in Law (Article 59 par /2016), until the conclusion of the administrative procedure for examining the application the enforcement of any expulsion, return or removal against the asylum seekers is suspended. Q14. Is the fact that the application was lodged after a return decision was issued taken into account in assessing the credibility of the subsequent application? / If yes, does the issuance of the return decision make a negative decision on the subsequent application more likely? Please refer to studies or governmental documents that provide evidence of these effects. 2 te that the AHQ launched by Ireland on 25 vember asked questions related to this topic. It might be therefore useful to refer to your national responses to this AHQ in providing a response here. Page 14 of 31

15 Section 3: Challenges to the return of rejected asylum seekers and Member States policies to manage these [Maximum 6 pages] The purpose of this section is to discuss some of the factors that can prevent the return of rejected asylum seekers and to identify any good practices to managing or preventing these. The description of the challenges to return will build on the results of EMN AHQs and other literature, as identified in section 5 of the background/context to this Common Template. The section also asks Member States to identify specific challenges which have proven difficult to address and for which no effective measures have, to date, been identified. The box below lists the identified challenges to return which the remainder of this section will build on. Main challenges to return The Ad-Hoc Queries as listed in section 5 of the background to this Common Template requested information on the main challenges to return as under the Return Directive. National responses indicate that Member States consider the main challenges to both voluntary and forced return to include: Resistance of the third-country national to return, which can take the form of: Physical resistance and restraint Self-injury (including hunger striking) Absconding te that third-country nationals may resist return for a variety of reasons including poor employment prospects on return, poverty and poor infrastructure in the country of return, levels of corruption in the country of return etc. and it may be relevant to address these drivers in trying to mitigate the challenge, as well as trying to address the challenge itself; Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to readmit their citizens, particularly when they have been returned forcibly (inter alia Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda and South-Central Somalia refuse to accept their nationals returned forcibly against their will); Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to issue travel documents; Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to issue identity documents; Problems in the acquisition of travel documents especially when no copies of the originals are available (and e.g. identification can only be verified through fingerprints) or when citizenship is complex (e.g. involving married couples from different countries or citizens who were born in another country); Administrative and organisational challenges due to e.g. a lack of Member State diplomatic representation in the country of return, which can slow down administrative procedures (e.g. make any obligatory consular interviews costly and challenging to arrange) and make negotiations more difficult. Additionally, in preparing this Common Template, members of the Advisory Group have indicated that the following is a challenge to return: Medical reasons i.e. If the returnee has a medical problem rendering travel difficult or impossible. Page 15 of 31

16 Q15. Are there any other challenges to return that your Member State experiences which are not mentioned in the box above? / If yes, please describe them by completing the table below. When describing, please state explicitly whether these challenges are general to the return of all third-country nationals, or whether it is a challenge that exclusively or more commonly affects the return of rejected asylum seekers. Also, if you would like to elaborate more on any of the challenges mentioned above, placing these in your national context, please include relevant information here. Challenge Inability to cover expenses for the implementation of the return Description of how this impedes return in your Member State According to representatives of the Hellenic Police Headquarters with regard to the present study, there are financial and administrative obstacles in the procurement procedures with service providers in order to implement the return decisions. Therefore, in some cases the returns do not take place either due to the failure of the Greek State to cover the costs of transport, or the expiration of the contracts with the service providers and the lengthy procedures for their renewal. State whether the challenge is: general to return / more common to the return of rejected asylum seekers / exclusive to the return of asylum seekers General Q16. In general, Member States undertake a broad range of measures to manage challenges to implementing return. Examples of measures that are undertaken, matched to the challenges, are mapped in the table below. Please indicate with yes/no which measures your Member State implements and, if necessary, include other measures not (yet) listed in the table. If relevant, add comments to further explain your Member States policy related to a specific measure. Challenges to return Measures to manage challenges Implemented? Does the measure specifically target the return of rejected asylum seekers? Resistance of the returnee to return Development AVRR programmes Detaining rejected asylum seekers to prevent absconding Physical force - Surprise raids to enforce removal - Page 16 of 31

17 Delay or cancellation of the return procedure Other? Refusal of authorities in countries of return to readmit citizens Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to issue travel documents Refusal by the authorities in countries of return to issue identity documents Readmission Agreements (EU and/or national) Bilateral cooperation with third countries/ establishment of diplomatic relations Establishment of representations in third countries Offering positive incentives, e.g. aid packages, to third countries authorities - Applying political pressure on third countries authorities Delay or cancellation of the return procedure - Other? Problems in the acquisition of travel docs Repeating fingerprint capture attempts/using special software to capture damaged fingerprints Using interpreters to detect cases of assumed nationalities Detention Offering positive incentives, e.g. aid packages to third countries authorities - Page 17 of 31

18 Applying political pressure on third countries authorities Delay or cancellation of the return procedure Other? Administrative/organisational challenges Budget flexibility - Coordination arrangements between authorities Designation of a Service Provider in third countries Establishment of a diplomatic representation in third countries Delay or cancellation of the return procedure Other? Medical reasons organising medical transfer facilitating medical support in the country of destination - medical supervision during travel Delay or cancellation of the return procedure Other? Other challenges? Please describe and add rows if necessary Please specify Please specify Please specify Q17. From your experience, can you indicate if there are any challenges which affect the return of rejected asylum seekers more greatly than third-country nationals in general? If there is no difference in the efficacy of returning rejected asylum seekers vis-à-vis third-country nationals in general please specify no difference. difference. Page 18 of 31

19 Q18. Has your Member State recently introduced any new measures/policies to ensure the return of third-country nationals (e.g. following the exceptional flows of asylum seekers arriving in the EU since 2014)? In the light of the Joint EU- Turkey Statement of March 18, 2016, the Article 60 par. 4 of Law 4375/2016, which precisely aims to ensure the return of rejected asylum seekers to Turkey, was introduced and came into effect. The length of the procedures and the deadlines established for the examination of applications for international protection at first and second instance are extremely short. Accordingly, the whole review procedure will be completed within two weeks while ensuring the return of the rejected asylum seekers from the Greek islands to Turkey. Furthermore, according to the representatives of the Hellenic Police Headquarters, it has already begun the process to launch missions from countries of origin, which contribute to the identification and recognition of illegally staying third country nationals and issuance of travel documents. Q19. Are you able to identify, from the measures as set out in the table above, any good practices, i.e. measures that have proven particularly effective in overcoming challenges to return of rejected asylum seekers specifically? If so please describe these measures in more detail by completing the table below and referring to any evidence (studies/evaluations/statistics on return trends) which demonstrate that these are effective practices in returning rejected asylum seekers. Measure Evidence of effectiveness / why the measure can be considered a good practice State whether the measure is effective in supporting the return of rejected asylum seekers Q20. Are there any challenges to return which your Member State has so far been unable to address effectively through any counter-measures? /. If yes, please describe the most pressing challenges here and explain why they are so challenging in practice, elaborating on why the counter-measures implemented have not proven effective. The resistance of third countries national in view of return and the lack of cooperation with the respective consular authorities are the most important problems, which significantly affect the efficiency of return procedures, according to the representatives of the Hellenic Police Headquarters. Page 19 of 31

20 Section 4: What happens when return is not immediately possible? [Maximum 5 pages] The purpose of this section is to present an overview of the approaches followed by the Member States to deal with those rejected asylum seekers who, for various reasons, cannot return / be returned. It focuses in particular on the status granted and the conditions of stay available to this group. Q21. If it becomes clear that a rejected asylum seeker cannot return / be returned, does a national authority official acknowledge this? / no. If no, what happens? Can the rejected asylum seeker continue to be issued return orders even though it has been established that they cannot be immediately returned, or is it communicated to the police / enforcement authorities that the person should be left to remain temporarily? Q22a. If it is formally acknowledged that a person cannot be (immediately) returned, who makes this formal decision? On the basis of which criteria is the decision made? The decision is made by the locally competent Police Director or, in the case of the General Police Directorates of Attica and Thessaloniki, by the competent for foreign nationals Police Director or any other Senior Officer designated by the competent General Police Director. The decision is taken on the basis of objective criteria according which the return is not possible and mainly relate to the failure to issue necessary travel documents or the implementation of the non-refoulement principle in the case of citizens from Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Myanmar, Mauritania, South Sudan, Yemen, Iraq and Palestinians, according to the Circulars / / and 1604/15/ / of the Hellenic Police s Headquarters. Q22b. Is an official status granted to individuals who cannot be (immediately) returned? (if no status is granted, please write no status granted ). In what circumstances may this be granted? status granted. Q22c. If a status is granted, what advantages and disadvantages does the granting of such status to those who cannot return / be returned bring to the authorities of your Member State? (e.g. advantages may include the possibility to maintain contact with the non-returnee in case return becomes viable in the future, the possibility for the non-returnee to contribute to society in the Member State, etc. and disadvantages may include the increased pressure on resources and the threat to the credibility of the asylum system) Q23. What rights are available to rejected asylum seekers who are not able to return immediately? Please answer this question by completing the table below. Page 20 of 31

21 Table 2.1: Rights and services available to rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned Questions according to law as carried out in practice Provide here evidence to suggesting this contributes to encouraging or deterring return Accommodation Is the rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned provided with accommodation? /no If you stated yes above, please describe the circumstances under which the accommodation can be provided Employment Are rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned authorised to access the labour market? /. In open temporary reception facilities for third country nationals or stateless persons under return procedure, expulsion or whose removal has been postponed (Law 4375/2016). The Director of the Centre of Reception and Identification adopts a decision forwarding third country nationals or stateless persons under return procedure, expulsion or whose removal has been postponed to the abovementioned temporary reception facilities (article 14 par. 2 Law 4375/2016). It is not known. If you stated yes above, please describe the circumstances under which they can access the labour market The rejected asylum seeker maintains the same access rights in the labour market, which had as an asylum seeker for the whole period that the voluntary departure option lasts. In addition, if a third country Page 21 of 31

22 national holds a certificate postponing his removal under Article 24 of L /2011 or certificate of non removal on humanitarian grounds under Article 78 A of L / 2005, he may apply to the competent Regional Prefecture for a work permit as provided in the Joint Ministerial Decision no /735/ (Government Gazette B 2631). In this case, he has the right to work only in agriculture and livestock, the domestic work sector and the clothing sector. In these areas, any other employment sector may be added, when the third country national was previously entitled to legal residence, but which is no longer valid, giving him also the right to an employment in a specific sector or to all sectors of the economy. The holder of a work permit has no right to work: i) in the Regional Units of Evros, Xanthi and Rhodope Region, Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. ii) to all Regional Units of the rthern Aegean Region iii) in the Regional Sections of Kos, Rhodes, Karpathos and Kalymnos in South Aegean Region This restriction does not apply to those who were previously entitled to legal residence, but which is no Page 22 of 31

23 longer valid, giving them also the right to an employment in a specific sector or to all sectors of the economy. Welfare Are rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned entitled to receive any social benefits? / no If you stated yes above, please briefly describe what these benefits are If you stated yes above, please briefly describe under what conditions these benefits can be provided Healthcare Are rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned entitled to healthcare? * If the Administrative Court of Appeal grants suspension of the secondary negative decision until the examination of the writ of annulment, rejected asylum seekers continue to receive the same social benefits to those they had access before the rejection of their appeal by the Appeals Committee. However, such decisions are rare and the vast majority of rejected applicants are not entitled to receive any social benefits. In cases of disability of 67% and above, a disability allowance is granted. The law also provides for an allowance for unprotected children. These provisions apply only if the Administrative Court of Appeal grants suspension of the secondary negative decision. Until the examination of the writ of annulment by the Administrative Court of Appeal.. With the healthcare card for for the disability allowance. for the unprotected children s allowance. Page 23 of 31

24 /no foreigners. Does it include all healthcare or only emergency healthcare? Primary and secondary health care as provided in the EKPY Regulation. Education Are rejected asylum seekers who cannot be immediately returned still entitled to participate in educational programmes and/or training? / no If you stated yes above, please briefly describe under what conditions they can participate in educational programmes and training Other? Are any other measures taken which are relevant to mention here? Please describe Page 24 of 31

25 Q24. In terms of status and/or rights, does your Member State make a difference between those who cannot return / be returned through no fault of their own and those who are considered to have hampered their own return? / If yes, (i.e. if you differentiate between these two groups), please describe the reasons for this differentiation and the method used to distinguish the two. Q25. Can persons who are not immediately returnable also be eligible for regularisations? / If so, under what circumstances? Q26. Does your Member State regularly assess the possibilities of return for rejected asylum seekers who could not immediately return / be returned? If so: a. what are the mechanisms for this assessment? b. How regularly is it undertaken? c. Which types of persons does it cover (i.e. does it cover all persons who cannot return / be returned or only those not granted a status)? d. Is there a point at which an alternative to return (e.g. regularisation) becomes possible? If so, on what criteria is it decided that the alternative to return should apply? a. It is assessed within the removal s postponement decision procedure, in case the return would constitute a violation of the principle of non-refoulement, or the enforcement of the return decision has been suspended by lodging an appeal, or due to the physical or mental status of the foreigner to be returned, or due to technical reasons, such as the lack of transport capacity, or failure to implement the removal due to its impossible identification. b. Every six months. The removal s postponement decision is valid for six months and may be reissued upon consideration on the continuation of the non feasibility to implement the removal. c. All d. Q27. Do you have any evidence that rejected asylum seekers who could not be immediately returned were eventually returned during the period ? Evidence may include government reports, studies conducted by research institutes or migrant rights groups or testimonies of returned individuals. Page 25 of 31

26 Section 5: Linking return policy to the asylum procedure: Member States policies and measures to ensure that unfounded claims lead to swift removal and to prepare asylum seekers for return [Maximum 8 pages] This section aims to explore interlinkages between the national asylum systems and Member States return policies. It aims to provide an overview of: 1) measures that Member States have in place to ensure that unfounded claims lead to the swift removal of the concerned person (in line with the EU Return Package and Article 31(8) of the Asylum Procedures Directive), and; 2) existing national approaches/ practices to prepare asylum seekers for (voluntary) return before a final decision on the asylum application has been taken. SECTION 5.1 ACCELERATED PROCEDURES According to recital 20 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU), in well-defined circumstances where an application is likely to be unfounded or where there are serious national security or public order concerns, Member States should be able to accelerate the examination procedure, in particular by introducing shorter, but reasonable, time limits for certain procedural steps, without prejudice to an adequate and complete examination being carried out and to the applicant s effective access to basic principles and guarantees provided for in this Directive. Accelerated procedures can help Member States to facilitate a swift return for asylum seekers whose applications are likely to be rejected. This sub-section explores whether and under what circumstances Member States use accelerated procedures. Q28. Did your Member State make use of accelerated asylum procedures, as stipulated in Art. 31 (8) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive ? /. If yes, for what reasons/in what circumstances does your Member State make use of such accelerated procedures? Please complete the table below Please indicate in the comments column if the measure is no longer applied, describing, if possible, why the measure was discontinued. Grounds for accelerating the examination procedure Is it policy accelerate the examination procedure when the application presents these characteristics? / If policy, is the policy applied in practice to date? / How often does this happen in practice? in all cases, most cases, some cases, rarely, never What was the Member State experience of accelerating the examination procedure in these circumstances has it helped to ensure swift removal? Applicant only raised issues not relevant to the examination In some cases According to the Hellenic Police Headquarters the acceleration of the examination procedure is estimated to be positive for the removal process. However, the lack of statistical data does not allow any safe conclusion. Applicant is from a safe country of origin Applicant can return / be returned to a safe third country in line with Art. 38 of the Asylum * It is noted that since April 2016 Page 26 of 31

27 Procedures Directive or equivalent national law Applicant misled the authorities by presenting false documents/information, withholding of info/docs the asylum applications of Syrian refugees entering Greek islands are examinded under the accelerated procedure of Article 60 par. 4 of Law 4375/2016 regarding return to Turkey. The first instance decisions reject the application as inadmissible on the ground that Turkey is a safe third country. However, most of the decisions in question have been overturned at second instance by the Appeals Committees who have considered the applications as admissible. Applicant destroyed documents intentionally to make assessment difficult Applicant made inconsistent, contradictory, false representations which contradict country of origin information (COI) In some cases Applicant lodged an inadmissible subsequent application Page 27 of 31

28 Applicant lodged an application to delay or frustrate enforcement of removal Applicant irregularly entered the territory and did not present him/herself to the authorities Applicant refuses to comply with the obligation to have his/ her fingerprints taken Applicant poses danger to national security or public order Other? (please specify and add rows if necessary) Q29. Does your Member State have a list of safe countries of origin / safe third countries? / no If yes, when was this introduced and which countries are included? Please note that this question was posed as part of Ad-Hoc Query requested on 3 rd February Please refer to your Member State response to this AHQ and provide only updated information.. Q30. Does your Member State implement any other measures to ensure that unfounded claims lead to the swift removal of concerned persons? Please describe such measures. Q31. Have there been any recent changes to policy or practice to ensure that claims considered unfounded lead to swift removal (e.g. these may include changes to policy or practices with regard to accelerated procedures and the use of a list of safe countries of origin and/or other measures)? / If yes, what are these changes? Why were they introduced (please specify if in response to the exceptional increase in asylum applications since 2014)? What are the likely effect of these changes (in particular to what extent will they contribute to ensuring the swift removal of applicants with unfounded claims)? Please note that this question was posed as part of Ad-Hoc Query requested on 3 rd February Please refer to your Member State response to this AHQ and provide only updated information.. Page 28 of 31