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

206 Implementation of the EU- Turkey statement tion of 1951 relating to the status of Refugees) and the legal texts that stipulate the terms and conditions, including the procedures for granting international pro- tection, as they are interpreted and applied by the Court of Justice of the Euro- pean Union and the European Court of Human Rights. To the opposite side of this acquis, we see many political choices in Europe that, instead of putting mechanisms of protection in place, concern mechanisms for the management of refugee flows. Such choices put refugees’ safety at risk, under the pretext of protecting EU citizens and combating terrorism, within an environment that fosters racist speech and xenophobia. 1 st Political choice: The joint statement by the Heads of EU Member States and Turkey, a political decision for the management of refugee flows to Europe that comes after a series of previous political choices, which had already called the European acquis and the decisions of EU institutional bodies in question: politi- cal choices, such as the refusal to distribute responsibilities and show solidarity among Member States, the questionable alliances and decisions by certain Mem- ber States outside the European institutional framework (see Visegrád), the clo- sure of the Balkan corridor, the shift of the responsibility of protection to the Eu- ropean south, mostly Greece and Italy, including third countries, such as Turkey and Libya, as well as the detention and deprivation of the liberty of asylum-seek- ers and refugees as the tools to prevent their entry in the European territory. 2 nd Political choice: Greece’s choice to implement the EU/Turkey Joint State- ment at all costs through legislative and administrative practices that raise ques- tions of legality, which have been strongly criticized by national, European and international bodies. Such practices include fast-track asylum procedures on the Aegean islands and viewing Turkey as a safe third country. Such arrangements, de- spite their extraordinary nature according to the same law that foresees them, are increasingly becoming permanent ones; furthermore, questionable practices include changing the composition of the Appeals Committees when their decisions found that Turkey is not a safe third country, prolonged administrative detention and the enforcement of geographical restrictions to asylum-seekers and refugees. In this context, the position of the Council of State, as reflected in its recent ma- jority decisions regarding crucial international protection issues for Syrian refu- gees that consider Turkey a safe third country, seems to resemble strongly to a political choice. In particular: With the said decision, the Council of State: 1 Rejected two Cancellation Requests by Syrian refugees that turned against the de- cisions of the Independent Appeals Committees, which had rejected their asylum 1. Plenary Section of the Council of State, Fourth Section decisions No. 445/2017 and 447/2017.