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

Maria Papamina 211 been referred by the fourth section of the Court, which found that there is a risk of being subject to “chain-refoulement” from Serbia to Greece, due to insufficient reception conditions in Greece. Of course, we need not to remind the judgment MSS v. Belgium and Greece. A recent development in the case-law is also the deci- sion of the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, which found that an asylum-seek- er’s return to Greece in the framework of Dublin Regulation could put the appli- cant at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, due to systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions in Greece . Summing-up, let me come back to the decisions of the Council of State that raise a reasonable question: can we consider that asylum and reception procedures in Turkey offer sufficient protection and safeguards for refugees, when Greece does not, at least according to ECtHR? The Council of State found yes, but did not have that question in mind. Let me stress that the decisions of the Council of State are not a presumption that the concept of a safe third country is applicable as regards Turkey. Before the review, assessment and application of the relevant criteria, including the exami- nation of European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights violations, both in the context of the asylum procedures and in the context of return and readmission procedures, must be preceded by an individual assess- ment of each case, ensuring in practice the right to effective judicial protection, as this is dictated by the country’s legal commitments. Therefore, we eagerly await the developments in terms of case-law, hoping that any political choices will be overcome and the European acquis will be respected.