CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAF0B79FF { margin-left:50.2pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D4532D { width:8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8990723E { width:10.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB965C79D { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s28BB4B37 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB5B0CEA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sAE1ABF8F { width:36.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s67BA3037 { width:151.1pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } THIRD SECTION CASE OF J.B. v. GREECE (Application no. 54796/16)       JUDGMENT   Art 13 (+ Art 3) • Expulsion • Effective remedy • Convention-compliant examination of a Syrian national’s asylum claim in the context of his potential return from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18   March   2016 • Striking-out of substantive Art   3 complaint due to granting of refugee status in France did no deprive applicant of his victim status under Art   13 • Applicant’s arguable Art   3 claim engaged State’s obligations under Art   13 • When asylum seekers’ return was governed by a structured framework of cooperation between two Convention member States (rather than by ad hoc diplomatic undertakings) with clear and objectively verifiable conditions, the assessment of risk must take account of that broader context • Principle that diplomatic assurances must be specific not to be applied mechanically where the receiving State participated in an established, mutually agreed mechanism for the treatment of returnees • General assurances embedded in such an agreement and implemented through ongoing institutional cooperation, might suffice to dispel a real risk of treatment contrary to Art   3 provided they offered a sufficiently reliable guarantee of protection • Assurances in the present case, assessed within the broader framework of the EU-Türkiye Statement and in conjunction with objective material, constituting a coherent and mutually reinforcing set of guarantees domestic authorities could rely on • Thorough multi-layered examination of the applicant’s asylum claim • Individualised assessment • Applicant afforded the opportunity to rebut the presumption that Türkiye was a safe third country for him • Effective safeguards enabling the applicant to assert his fears of treatment contrary to Art   3 capable of protecting him from being arbitrarily returned to Türkiye and, through chain refoulement , to his country of origin Art 3 (substantive) • Degrading treatment • Applicant’s detention, pending expulsion, for one month and nineteen dates in a police station without amenities required for prolonged periods of detention   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 26 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of J.B. v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Darian Pavli,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   54796/16) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Syrian national, Mr J.B. (“the applicant”), on 9 September 2016; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 13 and 3 of the Convention concerning the asylum procedure in Greece and under Article 3 concerning his removal to Türkiye and the conditions of his detention in Mytilene police station and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court); the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by Gisti (Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés) jointly with the International Federation for Human Rights, and by the AIRE (Advice on International Rights in Europe) Centre, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the International Commission of Jurists and the Dutch Council for Refugees jointly, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 28 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the potential return of the applicant from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18 March 2016. The applicant complained about several deficiencies during the removal process and in the examination of his asylum claim by the Greek authorities. He further complained about the risk he entailed if returned to Türkiye, including the risk of chain refoulement , as well as about the conditions of his detention in Mytilene police station. He referred to Article 13 in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention, as well as Article 3 taken alone. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Caen. He was represented by Ms   M. Tzeferakou, Ms   E. Velivasaki and Ms   N. Strachini, lawyers practising in Athens, Irakleio and Chios respectively. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Marioli, President at the State Legal Council, as well as by their Agent’s delegates, Mr   K.   Georgiadis, Senior Advisor and Ms Z. Chatzipavlou, Legal Representative at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. 5.     According to the applicant, he left Syria in April 2015 because he was in danger from Islamic State due to being of Armenian origin and a Christian, and also because the country was at war. He reached Türkiye through Lebanon, where he stayed for approximately a year, having been given temporary protection status. While he was there, he had to conceal his ethnicity and religion. 6.     On 7 May 2016, the applicant was arrested in Lesvos by the Greek authorities of the Central Port Authority of Mytilene because he had entered the country unlawfully. 7.     A certificate in Greek and Arabic dated 7 May 2016 stated that the applicant was served with a factsheet addressed to detained aliens who were liable to expulsion or re-admission to a third country through which they had passed, which explained the applicant’s rights to him.         Asylum Proceedings 8.     On 9 May 2016 the applicant expressed his wish to seek asylum. On 13   May 2016, his application for international protection was registered with the Regional Asylum Office of Lesvos. He asked to be recognised as a refugee and to be granted asylum in Greece. 9 .     On 20 May 2016, an interview was conducted by a member of the personnel provided by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), a European Union Agency which preceded the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), with the assistance of an Arabic and English interpreter, and then an interview report was prepared in English. The report stated that the applicant had been informed that the Asylum Office would consider if he could be returned to Türkiye under the “Safe Third Country Principle”; in the affirmative, his asylum claim would be declared inadmissible. Part of that process was the interview. During his interview, the applicant was asked several questions, on his personal data, his family and where they were located, any health issues he faced, the details of his travelling to Greece and how and when he had arrived. He was further asked about the circumstances in which he lived in Türkiye, where he worked, if he had experienced any problems because of his Armenian ethnicity and religion, if he had come in contact with Turkish authorities, had been affected personally by the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, feared anything specific in Türkiye and had anything to add. The applicant stated that he did not suffer from any mental health problems, that he was in good health and that his wife, two minor children and mother still lived in Syria. He had left Syria and entered Türkiye legally through Lebanon on 6 April 2015. He had remained in Türkiye until 6 May 2016 but had not applied for international protection there because there were serious problems between Armenians and Turks. During his stay, he had been forced to conceal his Armenian ethnicity and Christian religion so as not to face any difficulties. He had left Türkiye as he felt it was not safe for him: there was a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Türkiye supported Azerbaijan. While he was living near Istanbul, he had worked illegally as a sculptor for five employers, one of whom had not paid him, so he had asked some influential Alawi people to intervene. He stated that he feared retaliation from his former employer, though he had not experienced any problems with him after he was paid. He had tried to reach Greece but was arrested by the Turkish police and detained for four days. The EASO officer concluded the report by saying that all of the applicant’s statements about his identity, country of origin, itinerary and stay in Türkiye were accepted. There was no evidence on the file that the applicant’s life and liberty had been threatened in Türkiye, as his fears of being discriminated against because of his religion and ethnicity were based on general assumptions, given that he had never faced any such problems during the year he had lived in Türkiye. He was not ill-treated by the police who had arrested him in the exercise of their ordinary duties. He could therefore be returned to Türkiye as a safe third country. 10 .     The applicant’s application for international protection was rejected as inadmissible by Decision no. 32316/24-5-2016 of the Regional Asylum Office of Lesvos on the grounds that Türkiye had been the applicant’s “first country of asylum” or would be a “safe third country” for him, in accordance with Article 18 of Presidential Decree (“p.d.”) no. 113/2013, as he had entered Greece from Türkiye after 20 March 2016. The decision took into account, inter alia , the domestic legislation (Law no.   4375/2016, p.d. no.   141/2013, p.d. no. 113/2013); the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18   March 2016 (see paragraph 52 below); the applicant’s request for international protection; the interview with the applicant and the documents he had produced; a letter of 12   April   2016 from the Ambassador of Türkiye’s Permanent Delegation to the Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs; a letter of 5   May 2016 from the Director ‑ General of the European Commission’s Directorate-General Migration and Home Affairs to the Greek Secretary General for Population and Social Cohesion; and a letter of 4 May 2016 about the conditions of Syrian nationals in Türkiye from the UNHCR to the Alternate Minister for Migration (see paragraph 53 below). The Asylum Service concluded that neither the applicant’s life nor his liberty was threatened in Türkiye because of his race, religion, ethnicity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; that the applicant could ask for international protection in Türkiye, which would accept him following the EU-Türkiye Statement of 18   March   2016; and that as a Syrian, the applicant could have temporary protection in Türkiye, including from refoulement . The applicant was informed by the decision that he could lodge an appeal against it within five days of being notified of it and that if Türkiye did not accept the applicant, his application for international protection would be considered by the Greek authorities. There was also reference in the decision to various material that had been taken into account by the Asylum Service in reaching its conclusions, namely Turkish legislation, including the Temporary Protection Regulation and the Law on Foreigners and International Protection; the Report on Türkiye by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) published in December 2015; a report by the UNHCR entitled “Regional Refugee & Migrant Response Plan for Europe; Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans Route (January ‑ December 2016) – 19   January 2016”; and press articles concerning allegations about forced returns from Türkiye to Syria with the note that despite those allegations, there were no indications that Türkiye would return Syrians who were readmitted from Greece to Syria. Lastly, it also referred to Türkiye’s hosting of more than 2.5 million Syrian refugees as reported in the US Department of State’s “Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015-Turkey”. 11 .     The decision was written in Greek and the applicant was notified of it on 27   May 2016 in the presence of an interpreter. According to the notification certificate, the interpreter informed the applicant that he had the right to appeal against the decision to the Appeals Committee within five calendar days and that an appeal would have an automatic suspensive effect. 12 .     On the same day, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Appeals Committee against the decision. It appears from the application form and filing receipt that the applicant was informed by a member of the personnel provided by the EASO, with the assistance of an Arabic interpreter, that his appeal would be heard by the 11 th Appeals Committee on 31   May 2016. He was also informed that the appeals were generally heard on the papers, without the applicant being present, though he could ask to be heard. In the usual way, his request would be considered by the Appeals Committee, which would inform him if it was accepted. He was further informed that he should submit any additional documents by the date on which his appeal would be heard. 13 .     On 2 June 2016 the 11 th Regular Appeals Committee in decision no.   32316/2-6-2016 dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and found that the application for international protection was inadmissible under Article 10 of p.d. no.   113/2013. In particular, the Appeals Committee concluded that Türkiye was a safe country for the applicant under the criteria set out in Article 20 of p.d. no. 113/2013, given that he had lived in that country for one year, had worked for five employers and had not encountered any problems attributable to his religion or ethnic origin. The only problem that he had faced in Türkiye was related to his not having received his salary from one employer. This had been resolved with the intervention of certain third parties. Lastly, the Committee found that he had no fear of persecution on the basis of his religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; that Türkiye observed the principle of non ‑ refoulement ; that he did not belong to a vulnerable social group; and that he could ask for international protection and claim recognition as a refugee to receive protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”). In making this decision the Appeals Committee took into consideration, inter alia , the same documents as had the Asylum Committee (see paragraph 10 above). The applicant was notified of the decision on 3 June 2016. 14 .     The applicant filed an application for annulment of the above ‑ mentioned decision of the 11 th Appeals Committee (“ αίτηση ακύρωσης ”) in the Administrative Court of Appeal of Piraeus on 7   June   2016 and an application for suspension of the decision (“ αίτηση αναστολής ”) on the next day. In his application for annulment, the applicant underlined that he had not had any legal assistance during his interview for asylum or the appeal he had lodged with the Appeals Committee. The applicant gave the following reasons for annulment of the decision:      his interview had been conducted by an employee of EASO and not by a public servant; the interview had been conducted in English, which is not an official language of the Greek administration;      he was not called to appear in person before the Appeals Committee, which considered only his file and based its decision on some documents from UNHCR and the European Commission that had not been copied to him;      his asylum request had not been considered on its individual merits, but instead the authorities had relied on the EU-Türkiye Statement, which however was not binding nor had it been adopted through the regular legislative process;      the Appeal Committee had erred in its findings of fact about the risks he had faced in Türkiye and had erroneously found Türkiye to be a safe third country for the applicant. The applicant referred to the tension between Türkiye and Armenia and, relying on various sources such as Human Rights Watch and the US Department of State, claimed that Armenians were at risk of ill-treatment by the Turkish authorities. He further argued that the temporary protection offered to Syrians by Türkiye was not equivalent to the protection required by the 1951 Refugee Convention and that the Appeals Committee had failed to investigate whether Türkiye would breach the principle of non ‑ refoulement . Lastly, he asked the court to send a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) asking whether the EU-Türkiye Statement had been adopted using the procedure provided for by Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) and whether Article 38 (1) (e) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (“the Asylum Procedures Directive”), should be interpreted so as to require that the safe third country had ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention in full. 15 .     On 15 July 2016, the aforementioned application for suspension was dismissed by the Piraeus Court of Appeal in decision no.   N56/2016. The domestic court stated that the applicant’s arguments concerning Türkiye’s failure to implement the Refugee Convention and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984 (hereafter: “the Convention against Torture”) were manifestly ill-founded, as those were matters that could not be taken into account on an application for suspension of the decision in issue. General arguments regarding Türkiye did not mean that the applicant would not be safe if he were returned there. From the information provided, and the applicant’s replies during his asylum interview, it did not appear that he would run a real and individualised risk of persecution or of mistreatment or expulsion to Syria if he returned to Türkiye. His concerns regarding his ethnicity and religion were not enough to justify his fear of being returned to Türkiye, and neither were his general allegations. The applicant’s arguments regarding the procedure for claiming asylum were also unfounded: on the one hand, he had been interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter and on the other hand, he had not suffered any harm from the lack of legal assistance, given that he had submitted a procedurally correct appeal against the dismissal of his claim for asylum, as well as an application for annulment and an application for suspension of the decision on his appeal. Lastly, the applicant’s allegation that he was not a danger to public order was irrelevant to the consideration of his asylum application. Taking further into account the letter dated 5 May 2016 of the Director General of Immigration and Internal Affairs of the European Commission, the letter dated 4   May 2016 of the UNHCR which confirmed that UNHCR made every effort to monitor the situation of Syrians who were readmitted from Greece to Türkiye, and the letter dated 9 June 2016 of the UNHCR which confirmed that the readmitted Syrians who had voluntarily returned to Türkiye and asked to be registered for the protection offered under the Temporary Protection Regulation had succeeded, the domestic court dismissed the application for suspension. 16 .     On 31 May 2017 the Administrative Court of Appeal in Piraeus dismissed the applicant’s application for annulment of the decision of the 11 th   Appeals Committee in its decision no. A460/2017. The court held that the law allowed interviews to be conducted by EASO officers and that the applicant’s procedural rights had not been violated given that: a) he was assisted by an interpreter both during his interview and when he was informed about the hearing of his appeal; b) that he had been heard in person by the Asylum Committee, even if not by the Appeals Committee; and c) that he had not suffered any harm from the lack of legal assistance or the short deadlines, given that he had lodged an appeal against the refusal of his asylum claim on time, and that he had also made an application for annulment, accompanied by an application for suspension of the decision of the Appeals Committee. As regards the applicant’s arguments about the situation of refugees in Türkiye and the latter’s ratification of the Refugee Convention with a geographical limitation excluding Syrians, the domestic court held that it was not required that a country in which an applicant sought asylum had ratified the Refugee Convention, with or without geographical restriction, but it sufficed that it offered protection equivalent to the protection offered by the Refugee Convention. The Report of the fact-finding mission to Türkiye by Ambassador Tomáš Boček, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees (30   May ‑ 4   June 2016) filed by the applicant did not prove the applicant’s arguments, as it confirmed that the allegations of forced returns of Syrians to Syria had not been verified, and that Syrians had the right to temporary protection and the right to work. The Appeals Committee had considered the legislation and the general conditions of protection of Syrian refugees in Türkiye, and it had therefore given sufficient reasons for its decision. As regards the applicant’s fears that he would be sent to Syria, he had not referred to any specific actions or omissions of the Turkish authorities which would justify such fears; his concerns about being discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity and religion were not sufficient to accept that he would be in the danger he feared in Türkiye. His allegations were vague and, given that he had lived over a year in Türkiye without experiencing any problems because of his ethnicity or religion, the applicant did not face a real and individual risk of persecution or ill-treatment from the Turkish authorities. In any event, the applicant’s asylum claim had been assessed on an individual basis, so his allegations about routine deportations were unfounded. Given the above considerations, the applicant could be said to have a link with Türkiye as he had resided there for a long period of time, so the decision being challenged was well reasoned and justified. Lastly, the applicant’s arguments regarding the status of the EU-Türkiye Statement were not relevant, as the contested decision had not been based on it. 17.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court on 31 May 2018. The appeal was heard on 27 September 2022, but no decision had been given at the time of the applicant’s latest submissions on 1   August 2025.       Proceedings concerning the applicant’s removal to Türkiye 18 .     On 9 May 2016 the Director of the Lesvos Police Directorate issued decision no. 6634/1/71/4665-ξθ/9-5-2016, directing the expulsion of the applicant as an alien, on the basis that there was a procedure for him to be readmitted to Türkiye. It ordered the detention of the applicant pending his immediate readmission to Türkiye. The decision stated that the applicant had the right to appeal against it within five days of being notified of it to the General Regional Police Director of the North Aegean (hereafter: “the Police Director”) and that he also had the right, within the same deadline, to lodge objections to his detention with the appropriate Administrative Court of First Instance. That decision was served on the applicant on the same day, as evidenced by a certificate of notification in Greek. 19 .     On 9 June 2016 the applicant filed an appeal against the expulsion decision of 9 May 2016 with the Police Director. He argued that he ran a severe risk of being sent from Türkiye to Syria, where he could not be granted refugee status and where his life and freedom were threatened because of his ethnicity. Moreover, he had claimed asylum and therefore, the decision he was challenging should have never been issued. 20 .     On 11 July 2016 the Police Director dismissed the applicant’s appeal in its decision no.   9760/20/1/793-ζ/11-7-2016, with the twofold justification that the appeal had been filed out of time and that the decision being challenged had been lawfully made. The decision of the Police Director was served on the applicant in Greek; in the certificate, it was stated that the applicant had been informed of his right to appeal within the legal deadline and that he had refused to sign an acknowledgement that he had been notified of that decision. 21 .     On 20 July 2016, the applicant filed an application for annulment of the two above-mentioned decisions, namely the expulsion decision of 9   May   2016 and the dismissal on 11 July 2016 of his appeal against that expulsion decision, in the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene. The applicant argued that he had not been informed about his right to appeal in a language he understood and that the expulsion decision had been served on him in a language he did not understand, so he was not to blame for his appeal being filed out of time. As reasons for annulling the decisions, he put forward:      that the administration should have heard him before issuing the decision so he could explain the risks he ran in Türkiye;      that he did not have the right to an effective remedy for not having been given appropriate information about his right to appeal and for not having been given legal assistance;      that the EU-Türkiye Statement was not binding and the administration had interpreted it erroneously by proceeding to mass expulsions;      that his expulsion was contrary to Greece’s international obligations because he was at risk of being tortured if he was sent to Türkiye and from there to Syria;      that the decision to expel him was made after he had expressed his wish to make a claim for asylum and was therefore invalid; and        that no sufficient reasons had been given for the disputed decisions. He also asked for a request for a preliminary ruling to be sent to the CJEU. He referred to, inter alia , a medical reference dated 16 July 2016 asking for an evaluation of his psychological health, as he had had a panic attack while in detention; two resolutions of PACE; and various reports from Amnesty International, the National Commission for Human Rights, ECRE and other national and international monitoring bodies. 22 .     On the same day, he filed an application in the same court for suspension of the above decisions, as well as a request for an interim order. The request for an interim order was granted on 28   July   2016. It was valid until the decision on the application for suspension. The decision could also have been set aside by the court of its own motion. 23 .     In the meantime, on 22 July 2016, the Director of the Lesvos Police Directorate decided in decision no.   6634/1/71/4665ρ-δ/22-7-2016 that the applicant should be removed from Greece but without being detained until his removal. The decision was served on the applicant, and he was notified of it the same day, as evidenced by the certificate of service, which was in Greek. In particular, the decision not to detain him took into account the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene’s judgment no. 8/2016 of 22   July   2016, which had upheld the applicant’s objections to his detention (see paragraph 35 below), had suspended the execution of decision dated 9   May 2016 on the expulsion of an alien and had given the applicant 30   days to leave the country, requiring him to live at the premises of the former PIKPA at Neapoli, Mytilene (an accommodation centre for asylum seekers) until his departure. 24 .     On 25 July 2016, the applicant filed an appeal against the new decision to expel him with the Police Director and on 29 July 2016 he adduced the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene’s interim order of 28   July   2016, which had granted his request for interim order (see paragraph   22 above). 25 .     On 1 August 2016 the Police Director issued decision no.   9760/20/1/793-ιστ/1-8-2016, which, having regard to the interim order of the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene, suspended the execution of the contested decision until the delivery of a decision on the applicant’s application of 20 July 2016 for suspension (see paragraph 22 above). On 2   August 2016, a police officer attempted to serve the above decision on the applicant at PIKPA Neapolis, in the Municipality of Mytilini, but he did not appear to be living there. 26.     On 22 August 2016, the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene revoked the interim order of 28   July 2016, having taken into account decision N56/2016 of the Administrative Court of Appeal in Piraeus, which had dismissed the applicant’s application of 7 June 2016 for suspension of the decision of the Appeals Committee (see paragraph   15 above). 27 .     On 22 September 2016, the applicant filed an application in the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene for annulment of the following: a) decision no. 9760/20/1/793-ιστ/1-8-2016 of the Police Director, which had directed a temporary suspension of execution of the decision of the Director of the Police Division of Lesvos no. 6634/1/71/4665-ρ-δ / 22 ‑ 7 ‑ 2016 (see paragraph 25 above); b) decision of the Director of the Lesvos Police Directorate no.   6634/1/71/4665-ρ-δ / 22-7-2016 itself: this had suspended the execution of decision dated 9 May 2016 to expel the applicant from Greece and had ordered the applicant to leave the country within 30 days (see paragraph   23 above); c) decision no. 6634/1/71/4665-ξθ / 9-5-2016 of the Director of the Lesvos Police Directorate of 9   May 2016 to expel the applicant (see paragraph   18 above); and d) decision no.   9760/20/1/793-ζ/11-7-2016 of the Police Director, who dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 11 July 2016 to expel him to Türkiye (see paragraph 20 above). The applicant argued, in particular, that if he were returned to Türkiye, the principle of non-refoulement would be violated; that he could not be recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention; that he would be detained in humiliating conditions; and that he faced a risk of ill-treatment because of his ethnicity and religion. He also argued that insufficient reasons had been given for the contested decisions and he asked for a request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU regarding the EU ‑ Türkiye Statement. 28 .     On the same day, the applicant filed an application for suspension of execution of the disputed decisions pending a decision on the application for annulment. 29 .     That application for suspension was decided on 27   December 2016 in decision no.   21/2016 of the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene. It dismissed the application for suspension on the grounds that, irrespective of the damage alleged by the applicant, there could be no order for suspension given that the application for annulment of 22 September 2016 was manifestly inadmissible. In particular, the court took into consideration that: a) the first and the second of the contested decisions were decisions enforcing respectively the interim order of 28 July 2016 and decision no.   8/2016 dated 22 July 2016 on the applicant’s objections to his detention, which were decisions that could not be challenged with the application for annulment; and b) the third and fourth decisions had already been challenged by the applicant by his application for annulment dated 20 July 2016; the law did not allow a person to make two concurrent applications for annulment of an administrative act so the second application, dated 22 September 2016, was inadmissible. 30 .     On 18 January 2017 the Administrative Court of First Instance of Mytilene in its decision no. 1/2017 dismissed the application of 20   July   2016 to suspend the expulsion decision of 9 May 2016 and the dismissal of 11   July   2016 of the applicant’s appeal against that expulsion decision (see paragraph   22 above). In particular, the Administrative Court of First Instance of Mytilene held that the risks the applicant had referred to did not constitute a reason to suspend the execution of the decisions he had challenged in principle but were rather the consequences of the dismissal of his appeal against the decision on his asylum claim. In any event, the applicant’s eventual return to Türkiye would not cause him any irreparable harm consisting of being exposed to a risk of persecution or other unfavourable treatment by Turkish authorities for reasons falling within the scope of the Refugee Convention, nor had it been proved that the Turkish authorities were unable or unwilling to provide protection in the event that he was persecuted by non-state actors. 31 .     With regard to the applicant’s application of 20 July 2016 for annulment of the expulsion decision of 9 May 2016 and the decision of 11   July 2016 dismissing his appeal, on 4 December 2020 the Administrative Court of Mytilene delivered decision no. 42/2020, dismissing it. The domestic court held that there was no requirement in Greek law to serve a removal decision on a foreign national in a language he understood. The decision should include information about how the foreigner could lodge an appeal, and he could refuse to receive it or to sign the notification certificate because of his lack of understanding Greek. In the present case, the removal decision of 9 May 2016 had been served on the applicant and he had lodged an appeal against it on 11 July 2016 that was dismissed as out of time (see paragraph   20 above). However, the applicant had signed the notification certificate, which informed him how to appeal and what the deadline was, without saying that he did not understand Greek and could not read what the document said. 32.     On the same date, the Administrative Court of Mytilene in its decision no.   43/2020 dismissed the second application for annulment, which had been lodged by the applicant on 22   September   2016. The court’s reasoning was the same as for the application for suspension (see paragraph 29 above). 33 .     In his letter dated 1 August 2025 the applicant informed the Court that on an unspecified date he had moved to France where he now lives, having been granted refugee status.     Proceedings concerning the applicant’s detention 34.     On 7 July 2016 the applicant filed objections to his administrative detention in the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene. He submitted that he was Syrian, that he was not a danger to public order, and he was not a flight risk. He had lodged an asylum claim which had been rejected. He further adduced a certificate from the non-governmental organisation “Solidarity of Lesvos” that he would be hosted in their premises and complained, inter alia , about the conditions of his detention. The objections were dismissed in decision no. AP4/2016 of that court on the same day. The court held that the applicant had entered the country illegally and that if he was not detained, it was possible that he would try to prevent his removal by moving within Greece. 35 .     Following that, in the light of new evidence provided by the applicant, the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene in its decision no.   8/2016 of 22   July 2016 set aside its decision no.   AP4/2016 and upheld the applicant’s objections to his detention. It considered that the application for annulment of the rejection of the applicant’s asylum claim and the application for suspension of the removal decision constituted new evidence that reversed the situation that had been taken into account in that court’s decision no.   AP4/2016. Given the certificate from “Solidarity of Lesvos” that the applicant would be hosted in their premises and the fact that he had not demonstrated criminal behaviour during his stay in Greece, the court ordered that he be released from detention and gave him 30 days to leave the country.    Conditions of the applicant’s detention 36.     On 3 June 2016 the applicant was transferred from Moria camp to Mytilene police station, where he was detained until 22 July 2016. According to him, the conditions were humiliating: he did not have access to outdoor activities or yarding, to natural light and fresh air and to telephoning. His access to his lawyer was not unrestricted. The premises were only cleaned once per month, and he did not have access to hot water. No personal hygiene items or bedsheets and pillows were given to him and there were no tables or chairs for mealtimes. Apart from the objections he lodged twice with the Administrative First Instance Court of Mytilene on 7   and 21 July 2016, he also complained to the police authorities about the conditions in which he was being detained on 18 July 2016. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE         DOMESTIC LAW and relevant case-law 37.     Articles 76, 77 and 83 of Law no. 3386/2005 governing the conditions and procedure of administrative expulsion of foreign nationals, as in force at the material time, are reproduced, in so far as relevant, in Barjamaj v.   Greece , no.   36657/11, §§ 17-18, 2 May 2013). 38.     The Asylum Procedures Directive was transposed into the domestic law by Law no. 4375/2016, which came into force on 3 June 2016, with the exception of Article 60 § 4, which came into force on the publication of the law in the Government Gazette on 3 April 2016. The applicant’s appeal against the original refusal of his asylum claim was decided by the Appeals Committee on 2 June 2016. It could thus not be decided under the provisions of the new law, which came into force on 3 June 2016. The applicant’s asylum application was examined under Articles 18 and 20 of Presidential Decree no.   113/2013 (“Establishment of a uniform procedure for the recognition of third-country nationals and stateless persons of refugee or subsidiary protection status in compliance with Directive 2005/85 / EC ... ”) and in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 60 § 4 of Law   4375/2016, which was in force when the original claim was made. 39.     Articles 18 and 20 of Presidential Decree no. 113/2013 in their relevant parts read as follows: Article 18 Inadmissible applications “The deciding authority shall reject as inadmissible a claim for asylum by a relevant decision if: ... c) the applicant enjoys sufficient protection by a country which is not a Member State and is considered the first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 19 or...; d) the Authorities consider that a country is a safe third country for the applicant in accordance with Article 20, or ...” Article 20 Safe Third Country “1. A country is considered a safe third country for a specific applicant when all of the following criteria are met:   a. his life and freedom are not threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion;   b. the country observes the principle of non-refoulement , in accordance with the Refugee Convention;   c. there is no risk of serious harm to the applicant under Article 15 of Presidential Decree 96/2008;   d. that country prohibits the removal of an applicant to a country where he or she would be at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined in international law;   e. the applicant will have an opportunity to claim refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention; and   f. the applicant has a connection with that third country on the basis of which it would be reasonable for him or her to go there. 2. The fulfilment of the above criteria shall be considered on a case-by-case basis and for each applicant separately. Where a decision is taken solely on the basis of this Article, the Examining Authorities shall inform the applicant accordingly and provide him with a document informing the authorities of the third country concerned that the application has not been examined in substance. 3. Where the third country concerned does not allow the applicant to enter its territory, the application shall be examined on its merits by the Competent Examination Authorities.” 40.     Article 60 of Law no. 4375/2016 (“Borders Procedure”) transposing Article 43 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, as in force at the material time, read as follows: “... 4. In the event of arrivals involving a large number of third-country nationals or of stateless persons lodging applications for international protection at the border or in a transit zone of a port or airport, or while they are in Reception and Identification Centres, by joint deci