Τhe President of the Board of Directors of the Greek Council for Refugees, Vassilis Papadopoulos, with an op-ed in "Kathimerini" daily newspaper comments on recent developments regarding the government's legislative initiatives regarding refugees as well as the principle of non-refoulement and the right to asylum. You can read the article translated in English here:

The non – refoulement principle and the derogations of the Greek State By Vassilios Papadopoulos Recent judgments issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), (the most known being the Case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain[1]) have generated a discussion which risks to jeopardize certain principles which have formed the state of rule of law in post-WW2 Europe, and, as a consequence, in Greece. One of these principles, namely that of “non-refoulement”, developed between the two world wars as the principle which should protect the Jews from persecution by the Nazi regime, has been called into question in Greece. At first, it was challenged by a Legislative Act providing for the suspension of the registration of asylum requests (a move that could be justified under the threat of a mass number of migrants and refugees that might enter the country. as a result of the irrational, at best, action taken by the Turkish authorities to instigate their moving to the Greek borders[2]). However, it did not stick in this, recording in essence for the first time in a law provision, the suspension of the Geneva Refugee Convention, adding that those illegally entering the following month, would be expelled to their country of origin or departure, without being duly registered, in clear violation of international and European law acquis[3]. It should be noted that such violation has never taken place in any country of the Western World, while, even in the most relevant examples of the USA (with the interdiction on high seas and prohibition of entry for ships coming from Haiti[4]) and that of Australia (with the program of transportation of those intercepted on high seas to offshore islands for processing[5]), these methods were found to be legal by their national courts, invoking the extraterritoriality of the acts of the state organs involved[6]. In Greece, the only case where such action of “return” of any migrant or refugee attempting to find refuge on Greek soil might be considered legal, is by closing the border and refusing entry, without the Greek state being aware of any risk of torture or any inhuman or degrading treatment, as, even in this case, there is an absolute obligation of the Greek authorities to provide refuge (asylum, temporary or any other form of protection) to anyone attempting to find such resort, since the relevant provisions of the International Refugee Convention, of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the International Convention for the Prohibition of Torture are not subject to derogations even in time of war[7]. All the above have not at all been altered, by the aforementioned decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, neither by the invocation of a divergence among continental and sea borders (the latter still being borders, despite the fact that their closure would be rather unfeasible) nor by putting forward the argument that refoulement could be justified due to the availability of alternative legal channels. Providing legal entry channels, although a political issue at stake, does not, in essence, constitute an obligation under international law[8]. What constitutes an inalienanble obligation on the basis of international law shaped in the context of the United Nations, as a result of the experience acquired in the course of WW2, is to return in any manner whatsoever (de quelque manière que ce soit) a person, whether a refugee or anyone under a risk of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, to the country where he/she is under threat, either directly or indirectly[9]. Common feature in the recent cases of the European Court was the finding that the applicants were not subject to any risk in case of their return, so that no violation of art. 3 of the ECHR could be established (the Court could only adjudicate on this provision), while, at the same time, there was no divergence on the established principles of the Court, as expressed in the cases of Hirsi v. Italy and Sharifi v. Italy and Greece[10]. Thus, the recent recommendations and statements of the competent international organs such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees[11], the UN Special Rapporteur for Migrants[12], the Council of Europe, and the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union[13], which confirm that no return without the prior registration and interrogation of the migrant or refugee seeking protection in Greece is in conformity with international law, should be taken seriously into account. They should furthermore be taken seriously into account not only by the enforcement administrative authorities, but also by the organs of all the other State authorities. Thus, the idea proposed in the Greek Parliament of amending the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees is supercilious at least, if not perilous, as it comes in direct collision with international law, which we always invoke in the case of a threat. Equally dangerous would be a “policy” approach by the Courts, as no invocation of a state of necessity could justify a divergence from the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. If all the aforementioned seem to be excessively theoretical or ultra favorable of human rights, suffice it to remind of the case of the eight Turkish officers who Greece offered a refuge, without even been aware, at the time of their landing on Greek soil, whether the persons on board were refugees deserving protection or perpetrators of a coup d’ etat[14]. Supposing that a temporary closure of the border could be considered an emergency measure in view of the threat of mass guided entries, or even in view of an epidemic, the refoulement of migrants - refugees – humans (nobody asked them who they are) who have resorted to the Greek territory, as in recent alleged cases in Chios and Samos, constitutes not only violation of the law, but, furthermore, acts which undermine the fundamentals of a state of democracy. [1] https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/nd-and-nt-v-spain-grand-chamber-rule-return-migrants-morocco-did-not-breach-convention [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51695468 [3] https://rm.coe.int/opinion-on-the-greek-act-of-legislative-content-from-2-march-2020-on-t/16809e0fff [4] https://nacla.org/article/haitians-sea-asylum-denied [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_v._Haitian_Centers_Council,_Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruddock_v_Vadarlis [7] https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Derogation_ENG.pdf, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/NHRI/Torture_Prevention_Guide.pdf [8] https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2015/legal-entry-channels-eu-persons-need-international-protection-toolbox [9] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Migration/GlobalCompactMigration/ThePrincipleNon-RefoulementUnderInternationalHumanRightsLaw.pdf [10] https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-sharifi-and-others-v-italy-and-greece-no-1664309-article-2-3-13-article-4-protocol-4 [11] https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2020/3/5e5d08ad4/unhcr-statement-situation-turkey-eu-border.html [12] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25736&LangID=E [13] https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/fundamental-rights-of-refugees-and-migrants-at-european-borders [14] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/18/turkish-soldiers-in-court-after-fleeing-to-greece-amid-coup-attempt