Greece Puts €250 On Migrant Departures

Should a lawyer earn more when the person sitting across from them gives up a legal claim? Greece has now built that question into its asylum system. A new decree gives lawyers an extra €250 when an asylum seeker they have advised completes a voluntary departure from Greece. Greek bar associations say the design turns legal guidance into a financial incentive for removal (Government Gazette PDF, In.gr). No EU institution has yet assessed whether the scheme is compatible with asylum law.

For Maltese readers, the issue is not distant. Mediterranean border states have long argued that EU asylum rules are written in Brussels but lived at the quay, in the detention centre and at the lawyer’s desk. Malta knows that gap well. The legal question in Greece is whether a right remains meaningful when the person explaining it has a financial interest in one outcome.

How the bonus works

The decree, Joint Ministerial Decision 120961/2026, removes NGOs from first-stage legal information for asylum seekers and replaces them with private lawyers. Lawyers are placed on a register run through the Athens Bar Association and receive €160 plus VAT for each guidance session (ProtoThema English).

The disputed clause applies to applicants in border procedures, the fast-track process Greece uses at its external borders. When officials consider that someone does not have a "strong refugee profile", the decree does not say who makes that assessment or under which criteria. If that person then leaves Greece within two months, the lawyer receives another €250 plus VAT (Ethnos). The payment is not made because the applicant says they intend to leave. It is made only after departure is completed.

The government’s argument is simple enough: qualified lawyers should provide legal information, and voluntary return is recognised under EU law (Return Directive 2008/115/EC). Both points stand. But the Coordination Committee of Greece’s bar associations has said lawyers will not take part unless the bonus clauses are withdrawn. One report described the arrangement as drawing lawyers into a "head-hunting" logic (In.gr). The objection is not complicated: a lawyer paid more when a client abandons a case has an interest that does not sit comfortably with the client’s own.

These sessions are not full legal representation. Greek reporting describes advice that may 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 information also includes 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, the right to consult a legal adviser and the right to appeal a negative decision (Directive 2013/32/EU). The new Asylum Procedures Regulation, Regulation 2024/1348, is a central part of the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact. It expands border procedures but keeps those safeguards in place (Regulation (EU) 2024/1348). EU law does not ban states from telling applicants that return is an option. The pressure point is the payment trigger: the lawyer earns more only if the applicant leaves.

That matters for Malta as much as for Greece. The Pact entered its implementation phase in mid-2026, promising quicker procedures balanced by individual safeguards (European Commission Home Affairs). For small frontline states, including Malta, the real test is not the language of the regulation but the way it is applied in interview rooms, reception centres and appeals systems. Greece’s decree is the sort of national choice that will decide whether the Pact’s safeguards are practical rights or formal language. On the evidence now available, the bonus creates a serious conflict with EU safeguards, though it has not been found unlawful.

The European Commission, the EU Asylum Agency, which monitors member states’ asylum systems, and the courts have not yet taken a position (EUAA Asylum Report 2026). A challenge could come through the Greek administrative courts in an individual case. The Commission could open an infringement procedure. EUAA monitoring could flag the conflict of interest in its next report. None of that has happened so far.

Italy offers another version of the same problem. MEPs and NGOs have accused the Italy-Albania migrant processing centres of opacity and restricted access to lawyers (Euronews Italy). Health and civil-society groups warn that screening is being compressed into police-controlled spaces under tight deadlines (Questione Giustizia). Italy does not have an outcome-linked bonus. But the risk is recognisable: rights remain on paper while the procedure around them becomes so narrow that using them is harder.

What we still don't know

There is no implementation data yet. How many sessions are individual rather than group-based? How many applicants receive interpretation? How often is the €250 payment made? Without those figures, it is impossible to know whether the bonus changes lawyer behaviour or barely registers.

The people most affected are the least visible in the argument. The central question is whether an asylum seeker understood that accepting "voluntary departure" could end a protection claim. The decree’s design does not answer it.