Suspension of Asylum Applications as a Violation of the Country’s International Obligations

The decision of the Greek government to legislate a three‑month suspension of asylum applications raises, according to highly respected national and international bodies, a major issue of violation of international and EU law provisions that define Greece’s obligations regarding the granting of asylum and the international protection of refugees.

The Ombudsman further noted that, beyond the Geneva Convention, both the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Directive 2013/32 on asylum procedures guarantee not only substantive international protection in cases of well‑founded persecution but also the right of access to the asylum process itself. Importantly, the Authority underlined that Article 19 of the EU Charter prohibits collective expulsions (paragraph 1) and forbids the removal, expulsion, or extradition of any individual to a state where they face a serious risk of death, torture, or other inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment (paragraph 2).

The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) also expressed serious concern over the suspension of asylum applications, stressing that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right enshrined in international, European, and national law, and applies to every individual regardless of how or from where they arrive in a country.

UNHCR emphasized that even in times of migratory pressure, states must ensure that people seeking asylum have access to asylum procedures. Returning individuals to places where they may face threats to their life or freedom would constitute a violation of the principle of non‑refoulement. The Agency underlined that states cannot derogate from this core principle of international law. At the same time, international law does allow for the return of individuals whose asylum applications have been rejected after due examination of their cases, a safeguard that supports the proper functioning of an asylum system.

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O’Flaherty, called on the Greek government not to adopt the amendment suspending asylum applications – a request that was ultimately ignored. He warned that such a measure would legitimize the return of people to places where they risk torture and other serious violations, in breach of obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 Geneva Convention, and other international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Association of Administrative Judges also intervened, stressing that suspending access to the Asylum Service and returning individuals without registration to their country of origin or provenance violates the fundamental human right to asylum, enshrined in the Geneva Convention and other international and European instruments, including Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Association urged the withdrawal of the amendment.

On 25 August 2025, the Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens upheld the petitions of four Sudanese refugees who had been deprived of their right to asylum due to the government’s decision to suspend asylum applications.

The four Sudanese, detained at the Pre‑Removal Detention Centre of Amygdaleza (PRO.KE.K.A.), filed annulment petitions and applications for suspension before the Administrative Court of Athens, seeking interim measures against their return orders as well as against the administration’s refusal to register their asylum claims, citing the suspension of asylum under Article 79 of Law 5218/2025.

According to information provided by the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), which legally represented the four applicants before both the Greek judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Administrative Court of Athens granted their requests for interim measures against the return decisions and ordered the temporary suspension of their removal from the country until rulings are issued on the pending suspension applications before the court.

One day before the above decision of the Administrative Court of Athens, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had granted interim measures in the same case, requesting the Greek government not to remove the four Sudanese refugees from Greece.

In a joint statement, 72 civil society organizations condemned the government’s suspension of asylum applications as unlawful, stressing that “the fundamental principles of the right of access to asylum and protection against refoulement admit no restrictions.”

They further emphasized that these principles are enshrined in international and EU legal instruments of supra‑legislative force, which prevail over any national law provisions. As already highlighted by authoritative institutions in Greece and internationally, including the Ombudsman, the National Commission for Human Rights, the Association of Administrative Judges, the Plenary of Greek Bar Associations, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the suspension constitutes a violation of binding obligations.

Regarding the three‑month suspension of asylum applications – which Constitutional Law Professor at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and former Deputy Prime Minister Evangelos Venizelos described as a “derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)”– the Coordinating Committee of the Plenary of Presidents of Greek Bar Associations expressed “serious reservations about the compatibility of this measure with provisions of superior formal force under International and EU Law, and in particular with the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, Articles 4, 18 and 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), the Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU), and the Returns Directive (2008/115/EC).”