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

Minos Mouzourakis 105 holds that transit through a country “which is geographically close to the coun- try of origin of the applicant” suffices for the designation thereof as a “safe third country”. 36 For its part, the Council seems to endorse an even looser formulation of the connection requirement by deeming mere transit – through any country – as sufficient. 37 This approach contradicts not only authoritative guidance from UNHCR, 38 but also practice in several countries such as the Netherlands, 39 Austria, 40 Bulgaria, 41 Greece, 42 as well as Turkey, 43 which require stronger links such as presence of fam- ily members with which the applicant still holds contact, or prolonged stay or resi- dence. It also seems to disregard international agreements such as the 1996 Hague Convention on Measures for the Protection of Children, where connection is used as a concept triggering protection obligations. According to Article 8 of that Con- vention, for instance, a State where a child is present may request another State to assume jurisdiction and take protection measures on the basis of the existence of a “substantial connection” between the child and the requested State. IV. Territorial scope of safety and uneasy analogies to the “internal protection alternative” Other ways explored by the Council with a view to expanding the scope of the “safe third country” concept relate to its potential applicability to certain parts of a third country, where the safety criteria cannot be guaranteed in the entirety of its territory. Member States have seemingly drawn inspiration from the “inter- 36. Article 45(3)(a) Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation. 37. Council of the European Union, Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation (first reading) , 14098/17 15 November 2017, 11. 38. UNHCR, Legal considerations on the return of asylum-seekers and refugees from Greece to Turkey as part of the EU-Turkey Statement, 23 March 2016, available at: https://www.unhcr.org/56f3ec5a9.pdf, 6. 39. Dutch Aliens Circular 2000, para C2/6.3. 40. Austrian Administrative High Court, Decision 98/01/0284, 11 November 1998; Austrian Constitutional Court, Decision U 5/08, 8 October 2008. 41. AIDA, Admissibility, responsibility and safety in European asylum procedures, September 2016, 21. 42. Greek Council of State, Decisions 2347/2017 and 2348/2017, 22 September 2017; 9 th Independent Appeals Committee, Decision 15602/2017, 29 September 2017; 11 th In- dependent Appeals Committee, Decision 14011/2017, available at: http://www.asy- lumineurope.org/news/22-10-2017/greece-further-interpretation-safe-third-country- concept. 43. Article 77(2) Turkish Implementation Regulation of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection.