Greece pays lawyers €250 per departing migrant

Should the lawyer explaining your rights earn more money if you give them up? Greece's government thinks so. A new decree pays lawyers an extra €250 when an asylum seeker they counselled completes a voluntary departure, a design that Greek bar associations say turns legal guidance into a deportation incentive (Government Gazette PDF, In.gr). No EU institution has assessed whether the scheme complies with asylum law.

How the bonus works

The decree, Joint Ministerial Decision 120961/2026, replaces NGOs with private lawyers in delivering first-stage legal information to asylum seekers. Lawyers join a register run through the Athens Bar Association and receive €160 plus VAT per guidance session (ProtoThema English).

The contested part targets applicants in border procedures, the fast-track process Greece uses at its external borders. When officials judge that someone lacks a "strong refugee profile," the decree does not define who makes that judgment or by what criteria, a further €250 plus VAT is paid if the person leaves Greece within two months (Ethnos). The payment is not triggered by an intent to leave. It requires completed departure.

The government's case is straightforward: qualified lawyers should replace NGOs, and voluntary return is a standard pathway under EU law (Return Directive 2008/115/EC). Both points are true. But the Coordination Committee of Greece's bar associations announced that lawyers would not participate unless the bonus provisions are repealed. One report described the arrangement as asking lawyers to join a "head-hunting" logic (In.gr). The professional body's reasoning is simple: a lawyer paid more when their client abandons their case has a financial interest that runs against the client's.

The sessions themselves are not full legal representation. Greek reporting describes guidance that can be delivered remotely, in groups of fifteen or more, covering procedural rights, obligations and return options (Newsbeast). For applicants from countries with asylum recognition rates below 20%, the content includes information on criminal penalties for irregular entry or stay.

The EU can write rights into law. Greece decides how they feel at the desk.

EU asylum law protects the right to information, to consult a legal adviser, and to appeal a negative decision (Directive 2013/32/EU). The new Asylum Procedures Regulation (Regulation 2024/1348, the centrepiece of the EU's recently adopted Migration and Asylum Pact) expands border procedures but preserves these safeguards (Regulation (EU) 2024/1348). Nothing in EU law prohibits telling applicants that return exists. The tension lies in the payment trigger: the lawyer earns more only after the applicant leaves.

This matters beyond Greece because the Pact entered its implementation phase in mid-2026, promising faster procedures balanced by individual safeguards (European Commission Home Affairs). Greece is one of the EU's primary external-border states, processing applicants under the Pact's new accelerated rules. The decree is exactly the kind of national implementation choice that determines whether Pact safeguards work in practice. On the evidence available, the bonus creates a serious clash with EU safeguards, though not a proven breach.

The European Commission, the EU Asylum Agency (EUAA, which monitors member states' asylum systems), and no court have weighed in (EUAA Asylum Report 2026). Who could challenge the scheme? Greek administrative courts could hear an individual appeal. The Commission could open an infringement procedure. EUAA monitoring could flag the conflict of interest in its next report. None of these has happened.

Italy shows a different version of the same risk. MEPs and NGOs have accused the Italy-Albania migrant processing centres of opacity and restricted lawyer access (Euronews Italy). Health and civil-society groups warn that screening is compressed into police-controlled spaces with tight timelines (Questione Giustizia). No Italian outcome-linked bonus exists. But the effect is similar: formal rights survive while the procedure is designed so tightly that exercising them becomes harder.

What we still don't know

No implementation data exists yet. How many sessions are individual rather than group-based? How many applicants receive interpretation? How often is the €250 payment triggered? Without these numbers, whether the bonus reshapes behaviour or barely registers remains unknowable. The people most affected are the least visible in this debate. Whether any asylum seeker understood that accepting "voluntary departure" could end their protection claim is the question the decree's architecture does not answer.