Our Joint Statement on Greece's suspension of asylum

We strongly condemn the Greek government’s new legislative amendment to suspend the processing of asylum applications for people arriving by sea from North Africa.

Against the backdrop of increasing geopolitical tensions in the Aegean and Greek concerns over maritime security, as well as growing anti-migration hatred in Greek political discourse, Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis and the new Minister of Migration Thanos Plevris have framed the entry of people on the move to Gavdos and Crete over the last six months as an ‘invasion’. Calling for a ’state of emergency’, the Greek government has argued that people on the move are being instrumentalised by Libyan authorities, and pursued border securitisation efforts including the deployment of naval ships outside Libyan territorial waters. At the EU level, in July, the EU Migration Commissioner, Magnus Brunner, as well ministers of Greece, Malta and Italy visited East and West Libya to encourage the adoption of stronger anti-migration measures. After a diplomatic fall out with the (Eastern) Benghazi military-led administration, the Greek government, and more specifically, Minister Plevris announced suspension of the submission and examination of asylum applications for arrivals from the North African route, as well as their deportation without registration. This proposal was approved by a wide majority in the Greek Parliament on the 11th of July 2025. In addition, the government has also committed to arrest and detain all new arrivals pending deportation, and implemented a naval blockade.  

1. Suspension of asylum examinations for people arriving from the North African Route

The decision to suspend asylum applications is not an isolated practice. On the 2nd of March 2020, in response to arrivals at the Evros border, the Greek government adopted an emergency legislative decree stripping undocumented people on the move from their right to seek asylum for one month. Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) and other organisations demonstrated how the blanket policy rendered people on the move subject to grave human rights violations, including overcrowded detention conditions and inhumane treatment in the detention centres. Mirroring that practice, the Evros model has now been used as a blueprint to justify the new suspension of asylum. We condemn this decision as a blatant violation of the rights of people on the move, more specifically the fundamental right to seek asylum as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Geneva Convention. 

This new legislative amendment aims to suspend asylum for all individuals arriving from the North African route for a period of 3 months and provides for their immediate deportation from the country without registration. In the parliamentary plenary session, the Greek government claimed that the majority of people coming from the North African route come from safe countries of origin, including 68% from Egypt, Bangladesh and Pakistan, in accordance with joint decision no. 305652/20 2024 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. While the application of this concept neglects individual experiences and vulnerabilities en-route, it is also important to note that people have also arrived from Sudan, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Yemen, all of which are nationalities that received positive asylum decisions in 2024. Yet, media coverage and political rhetoric continue to focus on the argument that the majority of those arriving on Crete and Gavdos “do not have a refugee profile”. The systematic omission of this reality and the infringement of procedural safeguards for individuals fleeing war and persecution amount to outright violations of obligations to ensure processing capacity under dignified conditions. This procedural infringement undermines the right to seek asylum in practice. 

This blanket policy circumvents international law, neglecting the experience and vulnerabilities en route of people on the move and violating the principle of non-refoulement under Article 5 of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,  Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. 

The right to seek asylum is not optional. It cannot be suspended based on political convenience.

2. Summary arrest and indefinite detention pending alleged deportation

Legality of detention 

As it had happened in 2020, the Greek governments’ move to suspend processing asylum applications has been accompanied by further punitive measures against new arrivals. Notably, these include their  summary arrest and detention pending deportation, without registration. This places people into an  unwilling state of legal limbo where they are forced to remain undocumented, detained and without options for  legal redress in violation of EU and international law. 

The blanket detention of new arrivals breaches applicable legal standards according to which detention  must be justified on an individual basis, in fact and law, and must be subject to judicial oversight. Critically, under the EU’s Return Directive, persons cannot be held in detention where no reasonable prospect of removal exists. Considering the diverse legal, political and practical reasons for which it must be acknowledged that deportation is simply impossible, the decision ultimately means that people will  risk facing indefinite detention.

Conditions of detention 

The conditions in which people are and will be kept risks further infringing on people’s fundamental rights. In Crete, considering the island’s limited reception capacity, many are being kept in informal and temporary spaces characterised by sub-standard conditions and limited access to basic rights and services. 

Promising to increase local capacity to detain arrivals, the Greek government has committed to the construction of at least one new detention facility on the island. Taken as a reactionary measure, these actions risk replicating violations which occurred in 2020, where new mainland facilities constructed in response to arrivals at the Evros border were characterised by  inhumane and undignified conditions posing tangible risks to persons’ health and safety. This includes Malakasa, which remains in use and characterised by hostile and sub-standard conditions. The facility, in addition to Diavata and Fylakio, will  now also be used to accept and detain transfers from Crete.   

Considering these long-standing and critical deficiencies in the provisions of adequate reception, we categorically condemn the construction of yet another facility designed to keep people in custodial conditions in violation of  fundamental rights and applicable legal standards. We also join local actors in condemning the lack of short term provisions in undignified reception centres, and call for the de-escalation of xenophobic treatment and racist hate speech in these state-led reception facilities. 

More broadly, we strongly condemn the transformation of administrative procedures into criminal ones, and therefore the treatment of new arrivals as criminals allegedly “without a refugee profile”, despite elimination of the procedures in place to determine the accuracy of that claim. Instead of meaningful and structural solutions to accommodate arrivals, these decisions demonstrate a systemic lack of preparedness and lack of political will to guarantee the bare minimum in human rights standards for people on the move. 

3. Tangible risks of pushbacks due to naval blockade 

As a preliminary response, the Greek government also  took the decision to deploy naval vessels off of the coast of Libya to block the arrival of asylum seekers to its shores. Framed as a  pre-emptive measure, this military action - coordinated with the European Commission and Libyan  authorities - is a disproportionate and dangerous move carrying the significant and tangible risk of the authorities’ involvement in pushbacks. 

Irrespective of recent and damning findings against Greek officials for their complicity in the Pylos shipwreck, the decision confirms that pushbacks constitute a legitimate and default tool for the authorities to wield in response to an increase in arrivals. Despite being categorically illegal, this provides yet another example of the systematic nature of pushbacks.

Conclusions and recommendations 

We urge the Greek government to: 

• Lift the suspension and ensure that all asylum applications are processed fairly.

• Desist from using the Evros model as a blueprint for furthering human rights violations and reinforcing a growing detention regime in the Aegean islands. 

• Resign from using the safe third country policy as a tool to manage migration and outsource the asylum procedure responsibilities to third countries. 

• Take appropriate measures to ensure that no one is being held in inhumane detention conditions but rather has access to adequate and dignified reception conditions.

• Abandon the construction of deportation centres that will only further expose people on the move to degrading and inhumane treatment. 

• Treat all persons with dignity and respect, and abide by the special protection guarantees for vulnerable individuals under Article 72 (2) of the Greek Asylum Code, including: unaccompanied minors, survivors of trafficking, individuals with disabilities, those with mental health conditions, and survivors of violence and others.

• Cede from engaging in systematic pushbacks and endangering the lives of individuals at sea. 

We urge the European Commission to: 

• Take a decisive and unequivocal stand against this plan and hold Greece accountable for this flagrant breach of EU law. The right to asylum is enshrined in the fundamental human rights recognized within our treaties and is non-negotiable. 

• Uphold its responsibilities and act without delay in response to this violation committed by a Member State. As the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission must ensure full compliance with EU law and uphold fundamental rights across the Union. We had warned the Commission, when Poland took similar action at the Belarusian border, that failure to intervene would set a dangerous precedent — one that could embolden other Member States to follow suit, eroding the very foundation of the asylum acquis. 

• Initiate infringement proceedings against Greece due to its failure to comply with its obligations under European Union law.

Enough is enough. We expect Greek authorities and EU institutions to demonstrate commitment to the rights and values that bind us.