ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ: ΕΞΕΛΙΞΕΙΣ ΣΤΟ ΠΕΔΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΥΓΙΚΗΣ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟΚΛΗΣΕΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΕ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ

Minos Mouzourakis 103 and Switzerland have stressed full ratification of the Convention as a prerequisite for using the concept. 27 Visibly drafted with one eye on the legal framework of Turkey, 28 the only country applying a geographical limitation to the Geneva Convention, the wording of the Commission proposal in this respect is problematic. The distinction between “sub- stantive” and “non-substantive” standards has no basis in the Geneva Convention and implies the possibility for states to engage in a selective reading of their pro- tection obligations by disregarding some of the Convention provisions. Such an ap- proach is incompatible with the requirement in Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) for the EU’s common policy on asylum to be “in ac- cordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 Janu- ary 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties”. Adopt- ing the proposed wording in EU law would undermine the authority of the Geneva Convention as the “cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime”. 29 In addition, the inclusion of “sufficient protection” as an alternative benchmark to the Geneva Convention widens the scope of application of the “safe third country” concept even further. The notion of “sufficient protection” in the Asy- lum Procedures Regulation proposal is now precisely defined to include, beyond compliance with the principle of non-refoulement , the right to legal residence, appropriate access to the labour market, reception facilities, health care and education, and the right to family reunification. 30 However, accepting “sufficient protection”, a lower and generally more precarious protection status than that se- cured under the Geneva Convention, would in principle undermine the EU’s com- mitment to the Convention as the cornerstone of the global protection regime, as it would allow Member States to transfer responsibility to countries offering lower-level protection than that required by the Convention. This risk seems even more potent in light of the Council’s attempt to water down the guarantees in the definition of “sufficient protection” laid down the Commis- sion proposal. 31 The discussions in Council seem, however, to abandon the uneasy 27. High Court of England and Wales, Ibrahimi and Abasi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2049 (Admin), 5 August 2016, para 136; Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission, Decisions EMARK 2000/10 and 2001/14. 28. See alsoArticles 61 and 62Turkish LawNo 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, distinguishing “refugees” coming from European countries, from “conditional refugees” originating from non-European countries. 29. See e.g. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-31/09 Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, para 37. 30. Article 44(2) Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation. 31. Council of the European Union, Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation (first reading) , 14098/17 15 November 2017, 4-5. The Presidency proposal has: (i) deleted references to family reunification; (ii) reduced health care to “emergency healthcare