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

208 Implementation of the EU- Turkey statement Furthermore, the Council of State considered that in order to characterize a third country safe, it would be enough to consider whether that country offers ‘sufficient’ protection of certain fundamental rights of refugees, such as among others the right of access to healthcare and the job market .” We must stress at this point that according to the case-law of the ECtHR, the obli- gation to protect human rights must take place effectively and in practice, 3 while the mere existence of domestic laws are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection. Therefore, in relation e.g. to the right to work of the Syrian refugees that are in Turkey, the decisions of the Council of State take no account of the fact that very few of them have been granted a work permit, while most are exposed to all kinds of labour exploitation (based on December 2016 figures, out of 2.7 million Syrians only 10,000 were granted a work permit). 4 Moreover, the Council of State considered that the Turkish authorities’ letters re- garding the treatment of Syrian refugees that will be returned by Greece are “dip- lomatic assurances with particular value of proof.” What do those letters by the Turkish authorities say? That Syrian refugees returned from Greece to Turkey will be granted this status of provisional protection. Also, according to the dissenting opinion expressed by a vice-chairman and a coun- cilor of the Council of State the status of “provisional protection” cannot be re- garded as “protection under the Geneva Convention”, considering that it consti- tutes a mass status, non-individualised and revocable at any time by decision of the Council of Ministers, which in fact fails to acknowledge all rights and benefits foreseen in the Geneva Convention for its beneficiaries. Be further reminded that according to standing case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, diplomatic assurances offered by a country’s authorities must be viewed in light of whether they practically provide effective protection, 5 based on reliable information in fact obtained proprio motu. 6 All the more, in this instance such “diplomatic assurances of a particular value of proof” are provided by a country where human rights conditions were problematic for a number of years, even before the attempted coup. We remind among oth- 3. Airey v. Ireland, App. no. 6289/73, judgment of 9 October 1979, Saadi v. Italy , App. No. 37201/06, 28.2.2008, paras 147-148. 4. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/jan/unhcr-letter-access-syrians-returned- turkey-to-greece-23-12-16.pdf, mentioning that out of 2.7 million Syrian refugees living in Turkey, only 10,000 have received a work permit (December 2016). 5. Saadi v. Italy, App. No. 37201/06, 28.2.2008, par. 147-148; ECtHR, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, No. 8139/09, Judgment of 17 January 2012, par. 187. 6. ECtHR, Auad v. Bulgaria , No. 46390/10, Judgment of 11 October 2011, para. 99.