359 removals bypass Greece’s asylum system

A person intercepted at Greece's border has the right to identify themselves, claim asylum, and challenge any removal in court. Those rights exist in EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. But if that person is removed before anyone records their name, the rights exist only on paper.

Greece's National Commission for Human Rights documented 21 alleged informal forced-return incidents involving at least 359 asylum seekers and refugees through its Recording Mechanism report (in.gr). The report alleges that uniformed and non-uniformed actors carried out removals without identifying anyone, screening their claims, or allowing legal review.

Why Frontline Practices Travel

EU asylum rules assign responsibility to the frontline state where a person first arrives. Greece is one of those states. If asylum access there is unreliable, the legal assumption underlying the whole system becomes fragile: that Greece will handle cases properly. Courts in destination countries can then block transfers, and the system unravels from inside.

The European Ombudsman (the EU's independent complaints watchdog) has already found that the EU Agency for Asylum, the body sent to help Greece process claims, failed to forward pushback reports to the European Commission (European Ombudsman). That finding does not prove each allegation. But it confirms that the reporting route from the ground to Brussels can break even when EU agencies are physically present.

Germany shows how this propagates. German courts have generally confirmed returns to Greece under EU asylum-responsibility rules, but administrative courts have been more cautious with women because of exploitation and sexual-violence risks (taz). Courts need facts before they can decide whether a return is lawful, and the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency (the EU body monitoring rights compliance) has stressed exactly this point (FRA). The Council of Europe's human-rights commissioner has called for risk checks, independent monitoring, and judicial control before any external processing centres go ahead (Berliner Zeitung).

Where Courts Drew the Line

Spain offers the sharpest legal contrast. The Spanish Supreme Court recently ruled that immediate border rejection cannot apply to people intercepted at sea or swimming toward Ceuta and Melilla (Spain's two enclaves on the North African coast). Full procedure must apply: identification, legal assistance, an interpreter, and a reviewable protection assessment (rtve.es, europapress.es).

Italy's attempt to filter asylum claims outside its territory, processing migrants in Albania under Italian legal responsibility, has hit the same wall. Italian judges declined to validate detention at the Albanian facility and suspended accelerated border procedures (Amnesty Piemonte/VdA, Sky TG24). In both countries, courts forced border-control experiments back into reviewable legal procedure.

Greece's case illustrates the harder problem. If the removal is undocumented and completed before registration, courts cannot reconstruct what happened. Spain's ruling forces a border act into procedure. The Greek allegations describe removals that bypass procedure entirely.

The Registration Gap

The EU's Migration and Asylum Pact (the bloc's new asylum rulebook, now being put into practice) promises common screening, registration, and independent monitoring at external borders. But the Greek rights body's findings describe alleged removals before the system records anyone. The Pact's safeguards begin once a person is registered. What happens in the seconds before remains undocumented.

The European Commission holds the power to open infringement proceedings (its tool for forcing member states to follow EU law) under Article 258 TFEU. If the alleged pattern is substantiated, registration is the Pact's first enforcement test. The Commission owes an answer on whether Greece's case warrants formal investigation or continued refusal to act.