Post-deportation risks under the EU-Turkey Statement : What happens after readmission to Turkey?
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: European University Institute
Subjects: EU migration policy, European Union, Greece, Türkiye, return migration, right of asylum

Issue 2017/30
November 2017

Post-deportation risks under 
the EU-Turkey Statement: 
What happens after 
readmission to Turkey?1
Maybritt Jill Alpes (University of Utrecht, 
independent consultant), Sevda Tunaboylu 
(University of Pompeu Fabra), Orcun Ulusoy 
(Borderline Europe), Saima Hassan (Journalist) 
This policy brief examines whether asylum seekers readmitted from 
Greece to Turkey after the EU-Turkey Statement as of April 2016 were 
able  to  access  effective  protection  in  Turkey  thereafter  (see  graph, 
return  trend,  p.  2).  The  EU  has  long  collaborated  with  countries  of 
origin  and  transit  in  the  form  of  migration  compacts,  readmission 
agreements  and  Memoranda  of  Understanding.  The  EU-Turkey 
Statement  is  different  from  prior  forms  of  agreements  because  of 
the  use  of  the  safe-third-country  concept.  As  a  result,  Greece  can 
reject  asylum  applications  of  people  who  passed  through  Turkey  as 
being inadmissible and shift the responsibility of merit assessments 
to  Turkey.  Whether  Turkey  can  offer  effective  protection  and  be 
considered a safe-third-country is highly disputed.2 Despite political 
pressure  and  the  Noori  ruling  by  the  Greek  Council  of  state  in 
September 2017, Greece has not yet deported an individual to Turkey 
on grounds of the safe-third-country concept. The 1,360 individuals 
(including 216 Syrians) whom Greece readmitted to Turkey between 
April  2016  and  October  2017  (see  graph,  nationalities  of  those 

1. This Policy Brief was researched and written in the context of a research project 
initiated by Ilse van Liempt at the University of Utrecht and financed by the Nether-
land’s Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We also thank project members 
Annelies Zoomers, Harald Glöde and the anonymous reviewers for their input and 
reflections. Last but not least, we would like to sincerely thank our respondents in 
Greece, Turkey and Pakistan. If you have any comments about this policy brief, please 
get in touch with the team of authors under m.j.alpes@gmail.com.

2. For a legal analysis of evidence that was mobilised by the Greek Council of State in 
relation to the question whether Turkey is a safe third country, see Refugee Support 
Aegean and Pro Asyl, (20 October 2017), “UNHCR has Failed to Stand Up for Ref-
ugee Rights During Crucial EU-Turkey Statement Judgement”, Legal Note, retrieved 
at  https://www.proasyl.de/en/news/legal-note-unhcr-has-failed-to-stand-up-for-ref-
ugee-rights-during-crucial-eu-turkey-deal-judge/.

BRIEFPOLICYmakes  a  distinction  between  Syrian  and  non-Syrian 
migrants  and  asylum  seekers  given  their  different  legal 
statuses in Turkey. The researchers contacted readmitted 
asylum seekers through the mediation of a translator (5X), 
volunteers or NGO staff (10X), through Turkish lawyers 
(2X)  and  through  recommendations  of  asylum  seekers 
themselves (9X), giving the sample a slight bias towards 
those  returnees  who  had  enough  social  capital  to  enter 
and  stay  in  contact  with  volunteers,  NGOs  or  lawyers. 
The findings were triangulated through expert interviews 
with Greek and Turkish lawyers5 and the rare secondary 
literature  on  the  matter.  International  organisations, 
NGOs  and  researchers  have  had  very  limited  access  to 
people who have been readmitted from Greece to Turkey 
to  date.  After  the  attempted  coup  d’état,  a  nationwide 
crackdown  on  human-rights  defenders,  which  also 
targeted members of refugee rights organisations, further 
restrained possibilities for human rights monitoring.6 

Even  though  UNHCR  acknowledged  in  December 
2016  that  it  did  “not  benefit  [...]  from  unhindered  and 
predictable  access  to  pre-removal  centres  and  to  the 
Duzici reception centre in Turkey,”7 the EU has not put 
into place a mechanism for monitoring the situation of 
readmitted  individuals.  This  policy  brief  documents 
the  following  human  rights  risks  for  readmitted  people 
under  the  EU-Turkey  Statement.  First,  neither  Turkey’s 
temporary  protection  regime  for  Syrians,8  nor  its 

asylum seekers from the DRC who had been readmitted from Greece 
to  Turkey  under  the  Statement.  In  September  2017,  Hassan  carried 
out  seven  interviews  concerning  the  readmission  of  ten  Pakistanis 
from Greece to Turkey and then from Turkey to Pakistan.

5.  In  July  and  August  2017,  Alpes  carried  out  interviews  with  3 
Turkish, 5 Greek, 6 international lawyers in Greece. In January 2017, 
Ulusoy  interviewed  7  Turkish  lawyers  and  5  NGO  practitioners  in 
Turkey.

6.  In  July  2017,  several  pro-governmental  Turkish  newspaper  pub-
lished  in  a  coordinated  manner  a  series  of  press  articles  that  spe-
cifically targeted NGOs working in favor of migrants’ rights. Among 
others;  (in  Turkish)  front  pages  of  the  printed  editions  of  Aksam 
(http://www.gazetemanset.com/aksam-gazetesi/20-temmuz-2017) 
and  Gunes 
(http://www.gazetemanset.com/gunes-gazetesi/20-
temmuz-2017). See also, Hur24 news http://www.hur24.com/alman-
vakiflari-turkiyede-sinsi-faaliyetler-yurutuyor-33986h.htm. 

7. UNHCR, Representation in Greece, Response to query related to 
UNHCR’s  observations  of  Syrians  readmitted  to  Turkey,  GREAT/
HCR/973, 23 December 2016, retrieved from: http://www.statewatch.
org/news/2017/jan/unhcr-letter-access-syrians-returned-turkey-to-
greece-23-12-16.pdf

8. Temporary Protection Regulation, 22 October 2014, retrieved from: 
http://www.refworld.org/docid/56572fd74.html 

UNHCR, 6 October. 2017, Returns from Greece to Turkey

returned) had either accepted to return, had received a 
negative  asylum  decision  on  grounds  of  merit  or  had, 
for various reasons, not been able or willing to complete 
their asylum procedure in Greece.3

UNHCR, 6 October 2017, Returns from Greece to Turkey

This policy brief is based on 26 asylum seeker interviews, 
which concerned 43 individuals readmitted from Greece 
to  Turkey  (10  Syrians  and  33  non-Syrians).4  The  brief 

3.  For  more  details,  see  Alpes,  M.J.,  Tunaboylu,  S.,  van  Liempt,  I., 
(2017), ‘Human rights violations by design: EU-Turkey Statement pri-
oritizes returns from Greece over access to asylum’, EUI Policy Brief 
(29).

4. In July and August 2017, Tunaboylu carried out 19 phone interviews 
about  the  readmission  of  30  individuals  who  had  been  readmitted 
from Greece to Turkey (ten Syrians, four Pakistanis, 15 Afghans, one 
Bangladeshi, one Zimbabwean, one Gambian, one Ivorian, one Iraqi). 
During  the  same  period,  Alpes  carried  out  interviews  with  three 

2 ■  RSCAS | November 2017

conditional  protection  regime  for  non-Syrians9  offers 
refugees long-term settlement prospects in Turkey. Also, 
legislative  changes  introduced  after  the  attempted  coup 
d’état have increased the risk of refoulement for asylum-
seekers  and  refugees  in  Turkey.  Second,  readmitted 
non-Syrians  are  detained  after  returns  to  Turkey  and, 
only  in  exceptional  circumstances,  are  they  able  to 
apply for asylum from within Turkish detention centres. 
Interviewed non-Syrians have been deported from Turkey 
without respect for procedural safeguards and 25 out of a 
sample of 33 non-Syrians have been intimidated to sign 
voluntary  return  forms  in  Turkish  detention  centres. 
Third,  readmitted  Syrians  experienced  the  temporary 
protection regime in Turkey as being so meaningless that 
16  out  of  216  readmitted  Syrians  felt  obliged,  to  return 
from Turkey to Syria. 

Weak Protection for Asylum Seekers and 
Refugees Further Undermined after the 
Failed Coup D’état 
Turkey  is  one  of  four  countries  worldwide  to  apply  a 
geographical limitation to the 1951 Refugee Convention, 
restricting its protection to nationals of Council of Europe 
member  states.  As  Turkey  lacked  a  comprehensive 
and  dedicated  law  on  international  protection  until 
2014,  UNHCR  was  in  charge  of  carrying  out  refugee 
status  determination  and  organising  the  resettlement 
of  recognised  refugees.  Only  in  2014,  did  Turkey  ratify 
the  Law  on  Foreigners  and  International  Protection, 
which  created  the  Directorate  General  for  Migration 
Management  (DGMM)  and  put  it  in  charge  of  asylum 
applications.10  The  new  law  maintains  the  geographical 
limitation,  but  creates  a  new  status  for  non-European 
refugees, calling them ‘conditional refugees.’ Conditional 
refugee status provides refugees with a lawful stay in the 
country, but access to education or the labour market is 
in practice very limited.11 Conditional refugees have no 

9. Republic of Turkey, Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International 
Protection  ,  4  April  2013,  available  at:  http://www.goc.gov.tr/files/
files/eng_minikanun_5_son.pdf

10. Because the Law on Foreigners and International Protection was 
only ratified in 2014, administrative courts lack expertise in applying 
the  legislation  to  foreigners.  Boček,  T.,  (2016),  ‘Report  of  the  fact-
finding  mission  to  Turkey  by  Ambassador  Tomáš  Boček,  Special 
Representative  of  the  Secretary  General  on  migration  and  refugees’, 
retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchSer-
vices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168069aa7f.

11.  Amnesty  International,  (2016),  No  Safe  Refuge:  Asylum-seekers 
and refugees denied effective protection in Turkey, pp. 23- 33, retrieved 

prospect  of  obtaining  a  long-term  residence  permit  in 
Turkey and are not entitled to family reunification. 

In 2014, Turkey also introduced the Temporary Protection 
Regulation,  which  governs  the  protection  regime  for 
Syrians. This legal framework does not guarantee a long-
term  settlement  prospect  in  Turkey  either.  Temporary 
protection  status  can  be  terminated  unilaterally  by  a 
Council of Ministers’ decision, after which Syrians would 
be required to leave the country. Turkish authorities expect 
that both  ‘temporary’ (i.e. Syrians) and ‘conditional’ (i.e. 
non-Syrian) refugees can either be resettled or repatriated 
in the foreseeable future. Outside of camps, Turkey does 
not  provide  Syrians  with  accommodation  or  assistance 
with  accommodation  costs,  nor  did  it  put  into  place 
systematic welfare provision for conditional refugees and 
asylum  seekers.  While  registered  refugees  and  asylum 
seekers  are  entitled  to  access  free  health  care  in  public 
facilities, language problems render this right ineffective 
and unregistered refugees and asylum seekers are given 
access only to narrowly defined emergency healthcare.12

After the failed coup d’état, legislative changes under the 
state of emergency lifted important procedural safeguards 
for the effective protection of asylum seekers and refugees 
in Turkey. On 29 October 2016, the Presidential Decree 
No. 676 made significant amendments, notably to Art. 36 
and Art. 54 of the Law on Foreigners and International 
Protection.  As  a  result,  asylum  seekers  and  fully 
recognised refugees can be deported at any point if they 
are recognized as ‘a member of a terrorist organization’. 
The  provision  does  not  require  a  court  decision  or 
formal procedure for declaring a foreign national to be a 
member of a terrorist organization. The amendment also 
abolishes the automatic suspensive effect for deportation 
orders  in  case  of  appeals.  As  a  result,  Turkish  law  no 
longer respects the principle of non-refoulement. Recent 
cases  examined  by  Amnesty  International  demonstrate 
that  the  risk  of  refoulement  is  not  theoretical,  but  very 
real.13 

from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur44/3825/2016/en/

12.  Boček,  T.,  (2016),  ‘Report  of  the  fact-finding  mission  to  Turkey 
by Ambassador Tomáš Boček, Special Representative of the Secretary 
General  on  migration  and  refugees’,  retrieved  from:  https://rm.coe.
int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?d
ocumentId=090000168069aa7f.

13.  Amnesty  International,  22  September  2017,  Refugees  at  height-
ened risk of refoulement under Turkey’s state of emergency, AI Index 
EUR 44/715/2017, retrieved from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/doc-
uments/eur44/7157/2017/en/

3 ■ Post-Deportation Risks in Turkey: The Eu-Turkey Statement as a Test Case For the Externalisation of  

Protection Responsibilities

 
Deported Non-Syrians Unable to Apply 
for Asylum From within Detention 
Centres and Forced to Sign Return Papers

Out  of  a  sample  of  33  non-Syrians  who  have  been 
deported from Greece to Turkey:

• 

• 

• 

16  stated  that  they  had  been  unable  to  apply  for 
asylum in Turkey,

25  were  intimidated  and  threatened  in  Turkish 
detention centres to accept returns to countries of 
origin. 

11 are in Turkey, 15 are in their respective countries 
of origin and seven have again paid smugglers and 
are back in EU member states

Non-Syrians  who  are  deported  from  Greece  to  Turkey 
are  immediately  detained  upon  arrival  with  the  stated 
purposes of secondary deportation to respective countries 
of origin.14 Only 33% of these readmitted individuals had 
received a negative asylum decisions by Greek authorities 
prior to their deportation.15 Nonetheless, readmitted non-
Syrians do not have access to fair and efficient procedures 
for  the  determination  of  their  status  in  Turkey.  Out  of 
1,144  non-Syrians  readmitted  to  Turkey,  only  57  were 
able  to  submit  an  international  protection  application 
from within Turkish detention centres (see graph, Access 
to asylum in Turkey). Out of these 57, two persons have 
been granted refugee status in one and a half years.16 Nine 
applicants received negative decisions, 39 applicants are 
awaiting a decision and 831 people were returned to their 
countries of origin.17 
14.    GUE/NGL  Delegation  to  Turkey,  2-4  May  2016,  What  Merkel, 
Tusk and Timmermans should have seen during their visit to Turkey, 
p. 5, retrieved from: http://www.guengl.eu/uploads/news-documents/
GUENGL_report_Situation_of_refugees_since_EU-Turkey_state-
ment_2016.05.10.pdf.

15.  UNHCR, 6 October 2017, Returns from Greece to Turkey, retrieved 
from: https://data2.unhcr.org/fr/documents/download/60306

16.  For  this  study,  we  interviewed  the  two  lawyers  who  were  filing 
these two successful asylum applications. Even though these two cases 
were successful, both individual will still have to wait for many years 
for their resettlement place.

17.  European  Commission,  06  September  2017,  Seventh  Report  on 
the  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  EU-Turkey  Statement 
retrieved  from:    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/
files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170906_
seventh_report_on_the_progress_in_the_implementation_of_the_
eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf

4 ■  RSCAS | November 2017

According  to  an  interviewed  Turkish  lawyer,  access  to 
international  protection  from  within  Turkish  detention 
centres  depends  on  ‘pure  luck’.18  A  33-year  old  Ivorian 
man  detained  in  2016  said:  “We  did  not  have  any 
opportunity  to  express  our  wish  to  apply  for  asylum. 
[…] There was the logo of European Union, and human 
rights everywhere in the center, but nothing was done to 
defend ours.” Readmitted non-Syrians are unable to apply 
for  asylum  within  Turkish  detention  centres  amongst 
others because they cannot access legal aid or means of 
communication.  Interviewed  readmitted  non-Syrians 
reported  that  the  Turkish  authorities  confiscated  their 
phones and that the only way for them to communicate 
with  the  outside  world  was  through  a  payphone  in  the 
detention  centre.  Access  was  limited  as  interviewees 
explained  that  they  were  locked  up  in  their  rooms  all 
day  long  except  for  20-30  minutes.  Two  interviewees 
reported  not  to  have  had  any  access  to  the  payphone 
for the first three months of their detention: A Pakistani 
man detained in 2016 said: “We told them that we want 
to contact our families and that they might be worried, 
but they didn’t allow us. When we complained, they kept 
beating us. During the 5 months I stayed there, they beat 
us many times.” A 16-year old Afghan boy detained for 
8 months in Turkey said: “On those first three months, 
my grandmother took a ceremony for our death because 
there was no news from us. She thought that we had died 
on the sea.”

Access  to  asylum  in  Turkey  for  readmitted  non-Syrians,  April  2016 
–  September  2017.  Source:  EC  7th  implementation  report,  UNHCR 
October 2017.

18.  Between April 2016 and July 2017, for example, one of the leading 
legal aid organisations for refugees ‘Refugee Rights Turkey’ has only 
been able to follow 150 readmission cases in detention. 

Access  to  legal  aid  and  protection  also  depends  on  the 
financial  resources  of  asylum  seekers  as  Turkish  bar 
associations  do  not  provide  systematic  free  legal  aid  to 
detainees.19  Yet,  even  when  detainees  manage  to  reach 
out  to  a  legal  aid  organisation,  lawyers  face  important 
obstacles  in  their  work.  The  Pehlivanköy20  and  Kayseri 
Removal Centres to which the Turkish authorities have 
transferred  readmitted  non-Syrians  respectively  before 
and after May 2017 are a four- to ten-hour bus ride away 
from  Istanbul  and  Izmir.21  Turkish  lawyers  face  access 
restrictions due to: the discretionary powers of detention 
centre management; its dependence on instructions from 
the  Directorate  General  for  Migration  Management 
(DGMM); and its staff ’s relative lack of familiarity with 
the 2014 law on foreigners and international protection. 
The interview room in which lawyers can meet detainees 
is under video surveillance and security staff do not leave 
the  room  during  meetings,  creating  fears  of  reprisals 
among  detainees  who  want  to  voice  complaints  about 
detention  conditions.  Detainees  lack  translators  and 
struggle to give their lawyers power of attorney because 
of the form of identification that is required and the cost 
of translating documents.22 

Despite  legal  guarantees  about  access  to  information, 
interviews  with  readmitted  non-Syrians  and  Turkish 
lawyers  show  that  readmitted  asylum  seekers  were  not 
informed about asylum procedures in Turkish detention 
centres.23  A  29-year-old  Zimbabwean  asylum  seeker 

19. According to Turkish bar associations, the minimum fee for the 
cancellation  of  a  removal  or  detention  order  is  respectively  roughly 
250 Euro. An application for interim measures with the constitutional 
court costs roughly 900 Euro.

20. Pehlivanköy is a small and isolated town in Kirklareli. The removal 
center is hence also known as the Kirklareli removal center.

21. One of the lawyers who trained members of the Kayseri bar asso-
ciation in refugee law has been arrested after the failed coup d’état and 
is still in detention at the time of the publication of the brief.

22.  Refugee Rights Turkey, February 2016, Position Paper: Notariza-
tion of Power of Attorneys by Asylum Seekers in Turkey: Problems 
and  Recommendations,  retrieved  from:  http://mhd.org.tr/assets/
vekalet_eng.pdf

23.  When the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the 
Council of Europe on migration and refugees, Tomáš Boček, visited 
removal centers in Turkey in June 2016, Turkish authorities but were 
unable  to  provide  him  with  a  sample  copy  of  legal  aid  information 
leaflets  despite  reassurances  that  all  new  arrivals  are  given  a  docu-
ment  explaining  their  right  to  apply  for  international  protection  in 
a  language  that  they  understand.  Boček,  T.,  (2016),  ‘Report  of  the 
fact-finding mission to Turkey by Ambassador Tomáš Boček, Special 

detained  in  Kayseri  from  June  until  July  2017  said: 
“Besides that we would stay in the jail for one year, they 
didn’t  give  us  any  other  information.  [...]  No  one  was 
speaking in our language. They did not tell us anything, 
and  nothing  about  our  rights.”  Interview  respondents 
also  reported  that  detention  centre  officers  were 
misinforming them. An officer at the Kayseri detention 
centre told an interviewed Pakistani asylum seeker who 
had  been  deported  to  Turkey  in  January  2017:  “Those 
people  who  got  their  asylum  rejected  in  Greece,  they 
are  not  allowed  to  apply  for  asylum  in  Turkey.”  “You 
came here for deportation, you will all go back to your 
countries.”

Out  of  a  sample  of  33  readmitted  non-Syrians,  16 
testified  that  their  verbal  attempts  to  apply  for  asylum 
were  ignored  or  even  actively  discouraged  by  staff  in 
detention centres. A 35-year old Pakistani man detained 
in May 2017 explained: “If we chose to request asylum, 
they would take away our blankets and make the rooms 
extra cold. [...] It was freezing, how could we stay there 
for six months?” An interviewed 19-year-old Bangladeshi 
national detained in Turkey for one year until May 2017 
explained how Turkish detention authorities responded 
to his wish to apply for asylum by saying: “You don’t have 
any  other  choice  but  to  go  back  to  your  country.  You 
cannot  work  in  Turkey,  you  cannot  do  anything  here.” 
Two  interviewed  DRC  nationals  explained  that  they 
had  asked  for  the  UN  upon  arrival  in  the  Pehlivanköy 
detention  centre  in  April  2016,  but  that  the  authorities 
told  them  that  this  was  not  possible.  Both  individuals 
were eventually able to reach a lawyer only because they 
managed to negotiate access to a landline with detention 
guards  and  knew  by  heart  the  phone  number  of  a 
Congolese priest in Istanbul.24 Looking back in July 2017, 
one of them commented: “Why if all this time we asked 
for asylum, were we not shown that office?”. 

Out of a sample of 33 readmitted non-Syrians, 25 said that 
Turkish authorities were trying to force them in different 
ways  to  sign  papers  that  would  lead  to  their  return.  A 
16-year old Afghan asylum seeker detained from April to 
November 2016 said how: “Every month, officers visited 
and they kept telling us to sign the deportation papers. 

Representative  of  the  Secretary  General  on  migration  and  refugees’, 
retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchSer-
vices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168069aa7f.

24. Detention centres do not provide detainees with the phone num-
bers of legal aid organisations.

5 ■ Post-Deportation Risks in Turkey: The Eu-Turkey Statement as a Test Case For the Externalisation of  

Protection Responsibilities

 
They said that otherwise they would keep us there for our 
whole lives.” A 29-year old Zimbabwean man detained in 
Kayseri explained: “Some people were taken to the dark 
(isolation) room if they refuse to go back to their country.” 
A 19-year old Afghan man readmitted to Turkey in April 
2016  explained:  “We  had  no  hope  because  they  kept 
telling us that we would be in prison for the rest of our 
lives. That’s why we decided to go back to Afghanistan. 
I  prefer  to  die  in  Afghanistan  then  being  detained  for 
whole my life.” Two Congolese respondents reported that 
the  Turkish  officers  became  verbally  aggressive  when 
they refused to sign documents that were entirely written 
in  Turkish.  A  27-year  old  Pakistani  woman  with  two 
children of two and four years explained: “I could hear 
the screams of people being beaten in the cell next to us 
because they would refuse to give their IDs.” The Turkish 
authorities  need  IDs  in  order  to  initiate  the  process  of 
sending  detainees  back  to  their  country  of  origin.  “We 
had to request them to move us or move their cell because 
our children would get scared and start crying”. 

Despite  provisions  in  Turkish  law,25  interviews  with 
readmitted  non-Syrians  reveals  unacceptable  detention 
conditions. Unaccompanied minors can stay in the same 
cells as adults and sometimes men and women are also 
mixed.  A  27-year  old  Pakistani  woman  and  mother  of 
two stated that the children were constantly hungry and 
crying, as the Turkish authorities would not provide milk 
and  diapers.  They  had  to  purchase  their  own  from  the 
jail’s  store  and  the  prices  were  hiked  up  because  “they 
knew we had no choice but to buy it from them. It was 
easily four times the normal price.” Removal centres have 
facilities  such  as  internet  rooms,  libraries,  hairdressers 
and  sports  halls.  But,  detainees  were  according  to  the 
interviewed  Turkish  lawyers  hardly  ever  allowed  to  use 
these  facilities.  As  a  19-year  old  readmitted  Afghan 
detained  in  Pehlivanköy  in  2016  explained:  “We  had 
nothing to spend time with, not even a piece of paper. 

Even those readmitted asylum seekers who are lucky to 
be able to apply for asylum do not benefit from support 
measures  during  the  procedure.  An  Afghan  father  was 
able  to  apply  for  asylum  from  within  detention  thanks 
to  the  intervention  of  volunteers  whom  he  had  met  in 
Greece prior to their readmission to Turkey. He explains 
the precariousness of the situation for him, his wife and 

25. Ulusoy, O., & Battjes, H. (2017). Situation of Readmitted Migrants 
and Refugees from Greece to Turkey under the EU-Turkey Statement. 
(Migration  Law  Series),  p.  23-  24.  https://rechten.vu.nl/en/Images/
UlusoyBattjes_Migration_Law_Series_No_15_tcm248-861076.pdf

6 ■  RSCAS | November 2017

three kids after having left the detention centre: “We had 
to sleep in the streets and parks until we found a place to 
rent in Izmir. We have now been in Turkey for one year 
and three months, but neither of us have jobs and work 
permits.  Our  family  and  relatives  in  Afghanistan  help 
us  financially.”  Non-Syrian  asylum  seekers,  including 
Afghan  nationals,  in  Turkey  have  to  wait  on  average 
several years for a decision on their case and then again 
several years for resettlement to their country of refuge.26 

Out  of  a  sample  of  33  readmitted  non-Syrians,  seven 
have again paid smugglers to leave either Turkey or their 
countries  of  origin  and  are  currently  back  in  different 
EU member states. After their release from the Turkish 
detention centre, three interviewed Congolese nationals 
reported  that  they  were  unable  to  find  shelter  as  black 
asylum  seekers  in  their  assigned  satellite  city,  which  is 
their designated residence city for the duration of their 
asylum  application.  While  they  had  a  place  to  stay  in 
Istanbul, leaving their satellite city rendered them again 
subject to detention and deportation. After two months, 
all  three  decided  to  pay  a  smuggler  to  bring  them  first 
to  Chios  and  then  to  the  Greek  mainland.  At  the  time 
of the interview, two were hiding from Greek authorities 
in  Athens  and  one  had  filed  an  asylum  application  in 
another EU member state.

26. During this time, asylum seekers also face access barrier to justice. 
An  Afghan  readmitted  man  in  our  sample  was  kidnapped  by  three 
armed  men  after  his  release  from  detention.  His  family  paid  4.000 
Euro for his release. When he went to the police in the presence of a 
legal aid organisation, the police arrested him because he had left his 
assigned  satellite  city.  “Our  families  took  money  from  other  people 
to  borrow.  [...]  The  kidnapper  is  still  contacting  us  on  facebook  to 
threaten us. [...] The police are also not helping us. When we go there 
for complaint, they arrest us and put us inside lockup.”

Readmitted Syrians without Effective 
Protection and Feeling Obliged to Return 
to Syria

Out  of  a  sample  of  ten  Syrians  who  returned  from 
Greece to Turkey under the statement:

•  Three stayed in de-facto detention for ten months 
and seven left for Turkish cities (no adult was able 
to  get  hold  of  a  work  permit  and  two  out  of  five 
adults who applied for a foreigner’s ID were unable 
to obtain one)

• 

Six are currently in Turkey and four felt forced to 
return to Syria (including one child and one preg-
nant woman)

The Turkish authorities preliminarily detained readmitted 
Syrians  upon  arrival.  According  to  the  readmitted 
Syrians, who we interviewed, the time spent in detention 
can  vary  between  24  hours  and  three  weeks.  A  Syrian 
man,  travelling  with  his  wife  and  two  minor  children, 
said  that  they  were  detained  in  Düziçi  for  twenty  days 
without  being  given  any  information  on  the  basis  and 
the length of their detention, while the other two Syrians 
readmitted on the same return flight were released after 
only two days. One Syrian man described how Turkish 
authorities told him to go back to Syria if he objected to 
them opening his bags and throwing his belongings on 
the floor.27

Authorities  have  so  far  transferred  the  216  readmitted 
Syrians  from  Adana  airport  to  two  de-facto  detention 
centres, namely the Düziçi Temporary Accommodation 
Camp  in  Osmaniye  city  and  the  Islahiye  2  Camp  in 
Gaziantep. Düziçi accommodates above all Syrians who 
have  had  public  order  issues  in  Turkey,  including  petty 
crimes and attempts to leave Turkey without appropriate 
travel  documents.  While  formally  called  ‘temporary 
accommodation centres,’ both serve as de-facto detention 
centres  in  which  Syrians  await  the  administration’s 
decision  on  their  protection  status  and  the  finalisation 
of related paperwork. A Council of Europe fact-finding 
mission found that staff at Düzici camp carried handcuffs 
and  truncheons.  The  camp  entrance  was  guarded  by 

27. While arbitrarily detained in the same manner, a readmitted family 
of 12 Syrians was also given the option to return to Syria. The family 
was not able to access legal aid and appropriate health care. Amnesty 
International, Syrians returned from Greece, arbitrarily detained, 19 
May  2016,  retrieved  from:  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/
eur44/4071/2016/en/.

security  officers  and  the  camp  was  surrounded  by  a 
fence  topped  with  barbed  wire.28  The  presence  of  a  de 
facto  detention  camp  and  administrative  detention 
for  persons  who  are  under  the  temporary  protection 
regime in this camp has no legal basis according to the 
Law on Foreigners and International Protection and the 
Temporary Protection Regulation.29
After  identification  and  security  checks  in  detention, 
readmitted Syrians are given the option of staying in the 
closed camp or leaving to live by their own means in an 
assigned Turkish city. 177 of the 216 readmitted Syrians 
chose to live in cities.30 Once in the city, Syrians need to 
register at the local offices of the Directorate General of 
Migration  Management  (DGMM)  in  order  to  receive 
temporary protection cards, commonly known as Kimlik. 
Only through registration, can Syrians legally remain in 
Turkey and gain access to public services granted under 
the temporary status such as education and healthcare.31 
Two readmitted Syrians said that they had not been able 
to register with the authorities despite repeated attempts. 
One of these Syrians decided to go back to Syria: “There 
was nothing for me in Turkey, I cannot get my Kimlik, I 
cannot get a work permit.”  The other readmitted Syrian 
is planning to pay a smuggler to re-enter the E.U. for the 
same reasons.

While  Turkey  introduced  new  regulation  on  refugees’ 
access to work permits in 2011,32 only 1% of all working 
age  Syrians  living  in  Turkey  have  been  able  to  access 

28.  Boček,  T.,  (2016),  ‘Report  of  the  fact-finding  mission  to  Turkey 
by Ambassador Tomáš Boček, Special Representative of the Secretary 
General  on  migration  and  refugees’,  retrieved  from:  https://rm.coe.
int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?d
ocumentId=090000168069aa7f.

29. Ulusoy, O., & Battjes, H. (2017). Situation of Readmitted Migrants 
and Refugees from Greece to Turkey under the EU-Turkey Statement. 
(Migration Law Series). Page 28-29.

30.  European  Commission,  06  September  2017,  Seventh  Report  on 
the progress in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, p. 6, 
retrieved  from:    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/
files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170906_
seventh_report_on_the_progress_in_the_implementation_of_the_
eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf

31. Refugee Rights Turkey, Information Booklet on Registration and 
Status for Syrian Refugees and Other Persons under ‘Temporary Pro-
tection,’ retrieved from: http://mhd.org.tr/assets/tp-booklet_eng.pdf

32. Regulation on the Working Permits of Temporary Protection Ben-
eficiaries.  No:  8375,  Date  15/01/2016  Official  Gazette:    http://www.
resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/01/20160115-23.pdf

7 ■ Post-Deportation Risks in Turkey: The Eu-Turkey Statement as a Test Case For the Externalisation of  

Protection Responsibilities

 
work  permits.33  As  a  consequence,  life  for  readmitted 
Syrians  is  precarious  in  Turkey.  One  readmitted  Syrian 
and  former  accountant  feeds  his  wife  and  two  children 
by working informally as a vegetable salesman for sixteen 
hours  every  day,  earning  an  equivalent  of  sixteen  Euro 
per day. A 29-year old former dentist is unable to practice 
his profession and currently lives on the income of one 
of his brothers who as a barber works in Turkey without 
a  permit.  Another  two  readmitted  Syrians  are  working 
informally  as  a  waiter  and  barber  for  roughly  eight 
Euro  a  day.  The  situation  of  those  Syrians  who  under 
the  Statement  are  no  longer  able  to  travel  to  Greece  is 
precarious,  too.  According  to  a  study  based  on  1,562 
off-camp Syrian households in four provinces in Turkey, 
93%  of  Syrian  household  live  under  the  poverty  rate 
due to limited employment opportunities.34 In terms of 
access to education, only 59% of over one million Syrian 
children of school age are enrolled in formal education 
programmes.35 

Because of the lack of access to work or social security, 
nineteen  readmitted  Syrians  out  of  216  chose  to  stay 
in  the  closed  camps.36  One  Syrian  man  with  his  newly 
born  baby  explained  his  choice:  “Single  men  can  leave 
the  camp,  stay  in  shared  accommodation,  other  people 
who have relative or friends in Turkey can go out of the 
camp and live with their help, but I didn’t have anybody.” 
“If  I  had  decided  to  leave  [the  Düziçi  accommodation 
facility], they would take our camp IDs and give us travel 
documents to go to a city, and we would have to make a 
new request for a Kimlik. In this time, I cannot access a 
hospital  or  get  any  medical  services.  My  baby  was  just 
born, so I could not take the risk of losing the health care.” 
33. İçduygu, A., & Diker, E., 2017, Labor Market Integration of Syrian 
Refugees in Turkey: From Refugees to Settlers, P. 22, retrieved from: 
http://www.gam.gov.tr/files/5-2.pdf

34. World Food Porgramme, June 2016, “Off-Camp Syrian Refugees 
in  Turkey:  A  food  security  report”,  p.  5  retrieved  23  October  2017 
from:  http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/
ena/wfp282921.pdf?_ga=1.195447276.1328830231.1478141578

35. 3RP Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan 2017- 2018, Response 
to  the  Syria  Crisis,  Turkey,  p.  41  ,  retrieved  from:  https://reliefweb.
int/report/turkey/turkey-3rp-regional-refugee-resilience-plan-2017-
2018-response-syria-crisis.

Düziçi Camp. Source: Tomáš Boček

The situation for readmitted Syrians in Turkey was so dire 
that sixteen out of 216 readmitted Syrians felt obliged to 
return to Syria.37 A 32-year old Syrian man who returned 
to Idlib in February 2017 with his pregnant wife and one-
year-old  child  said:  “When  we  requested  to  go  back  to 
Syria,  the  [Turkish]  authorities  told  us  that  if  we  leave 
Turkey now, we will not be able to go back in five or six 
years  and  maybe  never.  But  back  then,  the  situation  in 
Syria  looked  calm,  so  we  decided  to  go  back.  Now  we 
are in an area controlled by Al-Qaeda and the situation 
is  really  bad.”  In  phone  interviews  in  August  2017,  the 
readmitted  Syrians  described  how  they  felt  trapped  in 
Syria:  “I  have  two  possibilities:  fight  and  get  killed,  or 
try to go out by smugglers.” “The situation in Idlib is like 
hell.” “We are asking the Turkish government to open the 
borders. Otherwise, we will be killed here.”

36.  European  Commission,  06  September  2017,  Seventh  Report  on 
the progress in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, p. 6, 
retrieved  from:    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/
files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170906_
seventh_report_on_the_progress_in_the_implementation_of_the_
eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf

37.  European  Commission,  6  September  2017,  Seventh  Report  on 
the progress in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, p. 6, 
retrieved  from:    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/
files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20170906_
seventh_report_on_the_progress_in_the_implementation_of_the_
eu-turkey_statement_en.pdf 

8 ■  RSCAS | November 2017

close  its  borders  further.  An  18-year  old  Afghan  man 
described  his  crossing  from  Iran  to  Turkey  in  2016: 
“While crossing the border, they tried to shoot us. [...] We 
were a group of 10 and 11 people. In front of us there was 
a larger group. They saw them and they started to shoot. 
[...] One of the bullets crossed the neck of my friend.”

Turkey is not a Safe-Third-Country for 
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

The EU-Turkey Statement runs a real risk of preventing 
refugee’s  access  to  asylum  and  their  right  to  protection 
against  refoulement.  In  the  light  of  Turkey’s  disrespect 
for  procedural  safeguards  and  the  principle  of  non-
refoulement,  Greece  should  not  return  asylum-seekers 
back  to  Turkey  as  provided  under  the  EU-Turkey 
Statement.  Greek  authorities  should  instead  deport 
appeal  rights  exhausted  asylum  seekers  straight  back 
to their countries of origin. In the absence of a halt on 
return operations from Greece to Turkey, the European 
Commission should put into place a mechanism for post-
deportation monitoring by an independent organisation.

Turkey  is  not  currently  in  a  position  either  to  offer 
effective  protection  to  asylum  seekers,  or  to  detain  and 
deport  appeal  rights  exhausted  individuals  without 
violations of their human rights. At the very minimum, 
Turkish authorities should annul the changes introduced 
by  Executive  Decree  676  to  the  Law  on  Foreigners 
and  International  Protection,  reinstate  the  automatic 
suspensive  effect  of  appeals  against  removal  orders  and 
provide full and unconditional access to detention centres 
for  human  rights  lawyers  and  independent  observers. 
The administration must strive to render effective access 
to  work  permits,  train  detention  centre  staff  in  human 
rights  and  pro-actively  provide  legal  information  and 
legal  aid  in  languages  relevant  to  readmitted  asylum 
seekers in detention centres.

On 3 March 2016, prior to the EU-Turkey Statement, there 
were more than 2.7 million Syrian refugees registered in 
Turkey.38  In  comparison,  total  asylum  applications  by 
Syrian  nationals  in  the  entire  EU  since  the  start  of  the 
Syrian Civil War was around 660,000 as of March 2016.39 
Consequently, the EU and EU member states should show 
solidarity  with  Turkey  by  resettling  more  refugees  who 
have fled to Turkey and by accelerating the establishment 
of  a  Voluntary  Humanitarian  Admission  Scheme  for 
refugees in Turkey as foreseen by the Statement. In the 
absence  of  solidarity,  Turkey  might  very  well  decide  to 

38. UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response Inter-agency Informa-
tion Sharing Portal, retrieved from: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefu-
gees/country.php?id=224 

39. Eurostat, Asylum and first time asylum applicants, retrieved from: 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_
asyappctza&lang=en 

9 ■ Post-Deportation Risks in Turkey: The Eu-Turkey Statement as a Test Case For the Externalisation of  

Protection Responsibilities

 
Migration Policy Centre
Robert Schuman Centre  
for Advanced Studies

European University Institute
Via Boccaccio, 151
50133 Florence
Italy 

Contact:
email: mpc@eui.eu  website: www.migrationpolicycentre.eu/ twitter: @MigrPolCentre

10 ■  RSCAS | Policy Brief | Issue 2017/30 | November 2017

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced StudiesThe Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS), created in 1992 and directed by Professor Brigid Laffan, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research on the major issues facing the process of European integration, Euro-pean societies and Europe’s place in 21st century global politics. The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes, projects and data sets, in addition to a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration, the expanding membership of the European Union, developments in Europe’s neighbourhood and the wider world.Migration Policy CentreThe Migration Policy Centre (MPC) conducts advanced policy-oriented research on global migration, asy-lum and mobility. It serves governance needs at European and global levels, from developing, implement-ing and monitoring migration-related policies to assessing their impact on the wider economy and society.Content © Maybritt Jill Alpes, Sevda Tunaboylu, Orcun Ulusoy, Saima Hassan, 2017.Views expressed in this publication reflect the opinion of individual authors and not those of the European University Institute or the European Commission.  QM-AX-17-030-EN-Ndoi:10.2870/132639ISBN:978-92-9084-555-3ISSN:2467-4540© European University Institute, 2017