This expert opinion assesses the risks and conditions faced by asylum seekers, particularly Dublin returnees, in Greece. Despite legal frameworks intended to ensure adequate reception conditions and fair asylum procedures, significant deficiencies remain, raising serious concerns about the human rights implications of returning individuals to Greece under the Dublin III Regulation.
The context of long-suspended Dublin returns to Greece: Section I introduces the Dublin system’s legal framework and principles such as the rebuttable presumption of equivalent protection across all Member States. The section then provides an overview of the developments after the ECtHR’s 2011 landmark ruling in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, as well as CJEU’s joint judgement in the cases N.S. v. Secretary of State and M.E. v. Refugee Applications Commissioner, including a brief examination of the ECtHR’s reiteration from October 2024 in H.T. v. Germany and Greece that returning an applicant for international protection to Greece may amount to a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR.
Systemic obstacles to accessing the asylum procedure in Greece: After briefly setting out the legal frame work, Section II illustrates that Dublin returnees face significant barriers to (re)accessing the asylum procedure in Greece, with no special procedural track ensuring their fair treatment. Greek authorities merely guarantee that they will inform returnees of the asylum procedure, but do not in fact ensure access thereto. In general, the Greek asylum procedure is characterized by long delays in registration — with wait times on the mainland exceeding 12 months—leaving applicants without documentation, housing, or health care during this period of waiting and uncertainty. Severe shortages of interpreters further hinder access to and speed of the asylum procedure, leading to postponed or unscheduled interviews. Furthermore, Dublin returnees subject to the EU-Turkey statement may be detained to facilitate their return to a designated Greek island where they will undergo the so-called fast-track border procedure, including confinement in prison-like facilities. Applicants of certain nationalities face automatic inadmissibility decisions under the ‘safe third country’ concept, which block their asylum claims from being assessed on the merits and order their return to Turkey. As a separate matter, there are no indications that Greek authorities will not continue their practice of discontinuing applications for international protection lodged by Dublin returnees based on their prior departure and the related assumption of implicit withdrawal.
Deplorable reception and living conditions: Section III examines the minimum standards for material reception conditions required by EU law and their application in Greece. Accommodation facilities, whether isolated mainland camps or prison-like facilities on the islands, are characterized by restrictions on freedom of movement, including unlawful de facto detention and unacceptable living conditions. These conditions include inadequate infrastructure, poor maintenance, and the failure to ensure sufficient food, water, and sanitation, as well as significant staff shortages and limited access to medical care. Reports from NGOs and institutional bodies consistently highlight the substandard and dehumanizing reception conditions in Greek asylum facilities, with Greece having been repeatedly condemned by the ECtHR for infringing on the fundamental rights of applicants set out in the ECHR.
Routine and unlawful detention practices and inadequate conditions: In Section IV, the expert opinion first provides information on the legal framework on administrative detention in Greece and then examines the related practice in Greece. In summary, Dublin returnees, like other asylum seekers, face a risk of arbitrary detention as Greek authorities routinely impose detention orders on asylum seekers regardless of the actual prospect of removal or deportation from Greece. Further, detention facilities fail to meet basic human rights standards, with detainees being subjected to unsanitary conditions, overcrowding, a lack of medical care, and insufficient legal support.
Continued risk of irregular deportation: Section V illustrates that Dublin returnees face a continued risk of arbitrary, summary expulsion across the Greek-Turkish land or sea border.
Legal and institutional barriers to justice: Section VI shows how applicants for international protection, including Dublin returnees, face various barriers to accessing justice in Greece. In particular, legal remedies against detention and human rights violations are often ineffective or unavailable, with Greek courts routinely failing to investigate documented abuses.
Conclusion—Dublin returns to Greece carry high risk of human rights violations: Finally, in Section VII, the expert opinion concludes that—given the persistent structural deficiencies in Greece’s asylum system, the substandard and degrading reception conditions, and the systemic risks of detention and refoulement—returning asylum seekers to Greece under the Dublin III Regulation would expose them to conditions incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the EU Charter.