Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violations of Art. 3 (Greece);Violation of Art. 13+3 (Greece);Violations of Art. 3 (Belgium);Violation of Art. 13+3 (Belgium);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Respondent State to take individual measures

András Sajó;Christos Rozakis;Elisabet Fura;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant left GPE early in DATE and , travelling via GPE and GPE , entered ORG through GPE , where his fingerprints were taken on DATE in GPE .

He was detained for DATE and , when released , was issued with an order to leave the country . He did not apply for asylum in GPE .

On DATE , after transiting through GPE , the applicant arrived in GPE , where he presented himself to ORG with no identity documents and applied for asylum .

NORP The examination and comparison of the applicant ’s fingerprints generated a Eurodac “ hit ” report on DATE revealing that the applicant had been registered in GPE .

The applicant was placed initially in the PERSON open reception centre for asylum - seekers .

On DATE , by virtue of LAW . MONEY ( “ LAW ” ; see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , ORG submitted a request for the NORP authorities to take charge of the asylum application . When the NORP authorities failed to respond within DATE period provided for in LAW , ORG considered this to be a tacit acceptance of the request to take charge of the application , pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of that provision .

During his interview under LAW on DATE , the applicant told ORG that he had fled GPE with the help of a smuggler to whom he had paid MONEY and who had taken his identity papers . He said that he had chosen GPE after meeting some NORP ORG soldiers who had seemed very friendly . He also requested that the NORP authorities examine his fears . He told them that he had a sister in the GPE with whom he had lost contact . He also mentioned that he had had hepatitis B and had been treated for DATE .

On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the NORP Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy criticising the deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the reception conditions of asylum - seekers in GPE and recommending the suspension of transfers to GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . A copy was sent to ORG .

On DATE , in application of section CARDINAL/CARDINAL of the Act of DATE on the entry , residence , settlement and expulsion of aliens ( “ the Aliens Act ” ) , ORG decided not to allow the applicant to stay and issued an order directing him to leave the country . The reasons given for the order were that , according to ORG , GPE was not responsible for examining the asylum application ; GPE was responsible and there was no reason to suspect that the NORP authorities would fail to honour their obligations in asylum matters under Community law and the DATE LAW relating to ORG . That being so , the applicant had the guarantee that he would be able , as soon as he arrived in GPE , to submit an application for asylum , which would be examined in conformity with the relevant rules and regulations . The NORP authorities were under no obligation to apply the derogation clause provided for in LAW . Lastly , the applicant did not have any health problems that might prevent his transfer and had no relatives in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant was taken into custody with a view to the enforcement of that decision and placed in closed facility CARDINAL bis for illegal aliens , in ORG .

On DATE ORG , the ORG ’s operational partner in GPE , was apprised of the contact details of the lawyer assigned to the applicant .

On DATE ORG scheduled the applicant ’s departure for CARDINAL DATE .

At TIME on DATE , in GPE , the applicant ’s initial counsel lodged an appeal by fax with ORG to have the order to leave the country set aside , together with a request for a stay of execution under the extremely urgent procedure . The reasons given , based in particular on LAW , referred to a risk of arbitrary detention in GPE in appalling conditions , including a risk of ill - treatment . The applicant also relied on the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in GPE , the lack of effective access to judicial proceedings and his fear of being sent back to GPE without any examination of his reasons for having fled that country .

The hearing was scheduled for DATE , at TIME , at the seat of ORG in GPE . The applicant ’s counsel did not attend the hearing and the application for a stay of execution was rejected on DATE , for failure to attend .

The applicant refused to board the aircraft on CARDINAL DATE and his renewed detention was ordered under section ORG ) of LAW .

On DATE the NORP authorities sent a standard document confirming that it was their responsibility under LAW and CARDINAL § QUANTITY of LAW to examine the applicant ’s asylum request . The document ended with the following sentence : “ Please note that if he so wishes this person may submit an application [ for asylum ] when he arrives in GPE . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s detention was upheld by order of the chambre du conseil of ORG .

On appeal on DATE , ORG of ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE .

Notified on DATE that his departure was scheduled for DATE , the applicant lodged a second request , through his current lawyer , with ORG to set aside the order to leave the territory . He relied on the risks he would face in GPE and those he would face if transferred to GPE because of the unlikelihood of his application for asylum being properly examined and the appalling conditions of detention and reception of asylum - seekers in GPE .

A second transfer was arranged on DATE , this time under escort .

By CARDINAL judgments of CARDINAL and DATE , ORG rejected the applications for the order to leave the country to be set aside – the first because the applicant had not filed a request for the proceedings to be continued within DATE of service of the judgment rejecting the request for a stay of execution lodged under the extremely urgent procedure , and the second on the ground that the applicant had not filed a memorial in reply .

No administrative appeal on points of law was lodged with the ORG d’Etat .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant applied to the ORG , through his counsel , to have his transfer to GPE suspended . In addition to the risks he faced in GPE , he claimed that he had fled GPE after escaping a murder attempt by the ORG in reprisal for his having worked as an interpreter for the international air force troops stationed in GPE . In support of his assertions , he produced certificates confirming that he had worked as an interpreter .

On DATE the ORG refused to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG but informed ORG that its decision was based on its confidence that GPE would honour its obligations under the Convention and comply with ORG legislation on asylum . The letter sent to ORG read as follows :

“ That decision was based on the express understanding that GPE , as a ORG , would abide by its obligations under LAW , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention . The ORG also expressed its confidence that your Government would comply with their obligations under the following :

– LAW referred to above ;

– ORG Directive CARDINAL of DATE on minimum standards on procedures in member GPE for granting and withdrawing refugee status ; and

– ORG CARDINAL of DATE laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum - seekers .

I should be grateful therefore if your Government would undertake to inform ORG the progress of any asylum claim made by the applicant in GPE as well as the place of detention , if he is detained on arrival in GPE . ”

On DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE . On arriving at FAC he gave his name as that used in the agreement confirming responsibility for the examination of his asylum request , issued by the NORP authorities on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer received a first text message , in respect of which he informed the ORG . It stated that upon arrival the applicant had immediately been placed in detention in a building next to the airport , where he was locked up in a small space with CARDINAL other detainees , had access to the toilets only at the discretion of the guards , was not allowed out into the open air , was given very little to eat and had to sleep on a dirty mattress or on the bare floor .

When released on DATE , he was given an asylum - seeker ’s card ( a “ pink card ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At the same time , the police issued him with the following notification ( translation provided by ORG ) :

“ In PERSON , on DATE at TIME , I , the undersigned police officer ... , notified the NORP national ... , born on ... , of no registered address , that he must report within DATE to ORG of ORG to declare his home address in GPE so that he can be informed of progress with his asylum application . ”

The applicant did not report to the LOC police headquarters on FAC in GPE ( “ the LOC police headquarters ” ) .

Having no means of subsistence , the applicant went to live in a park in central GPE where other NORP asylum - seekers had assembled .

Having been informed of the situation on DATE , the Registrar of the Second Section sent a further letter to ORG which read as follows :

“ I should be obliged if your Government would inform ORG current situation of the applicant , especially concerning his possibilities to make an effective request for asylum . Further , the ORG should be informed about the measures your Government intend to take regarding :

( a ) the applicant ’s deportation ;

( b ) the means to be put at the applicant ’s disposal for his subsistence . ”

The NORP authorities were given until DATE to provide this information , it being specified that : “ Should you not reply to our letter within the deadline , the ORG will seriously consider applying Rule CARDINAL against GPE . ”

NORP On DATE , having regard to the growing insecurity in GPE , the plausibility of the applicant ’s story concerning the risks he had faced and would still face if he were sent back to that country and the lack of any reaction on the part of the NORP authorities , the ORG decided to apply Rule CARDINAL and indicate to ORG , in the parties’ interest and that of the smooth conduct of the proceedings , not to deport the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the NORP Government informed the ORG , in reply to its letter of CARDINAL DATE , that on arriving at FAC on DATE the applicant had applied for asylum and the asylum procedure had been set in motion . The ORG added that the applicant had then failed to go to the LOC police headquarters within the DATE time - limit to fill in the asylum application and give them his home address .

In the meantime , the applicant ’s counsel kept the ORG informed of his exchanges with the applicant . He confirmed that the applicant had applied for asylum at the airport and had been told to go to the LOC police headquarters to give them his home address for correspondence in the proceedings . The applicant had not gone , however , as he had no address to give them .

On DATE , as he was attempting to leave GPE , the applicant was arrested at FAC in possession of a false NORP identity card .

He was placed in detention for DATE in the same building next to the airport where he had been detained previously . In a text message to his counsel , he described his conditions of detention , alleging that he had been beaten by the police officers in charge of the centre , and said that he wanted to get out of GPE at any cost so as not to have to live in such difficult conditions .

On DATE he was sentenced by ORG to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE , for attempting to leave the country with false papers .

On DATE ORG ( now ORG ) adopted an order stipulating that in application of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the entry , residence and social integration of third - country nationals in GPE , the applicant was the subject of an administrative expulsion procedure . It further stipulated that the applicant could be released as he was not suspected of intending to abscond and was not a threat to public order .

On DATE the applicant went to the GPE police headquarters , where his “ pink card ” was renewed for DATE . In a letter on DATE , the police took note in writing that the applicant had informed them that he had nowhere to live , and asked ORG to help find him a home .

On DATE the decision to expel the applicant was automatically revoked by the NORP authorities because the applicant had made an application for asylum prior to his arrest .

In a letter dated DATE , ORG informed ORG that , because of strong demand , the search for accommodation for the applicant had been delayed , but that somewhere had been found ; in the absence of an address where he could be contacted , however , it had not been possible to inform the applicant .

On DATE the applicant went to the GPE police headquarters , where his “ pink card ” was renewed for DATE .

On DATE the applicant received a notice in NORP , which he signed in the presence of an interpreter , inviting him to an interview at the LOC police headquarters on DATE . The applicant did not attend the interview .

Contacted by his counsel after the hearing before the ORG , the applicant informed him that the notice had been handed to him in NORP when his “ pink card ” had been renewed and that the interpreter had made no mention of any date for an interview .

In a text message to his counsel dated DATE , the applicant informed him that he had once again attempted to leave GPE for GPE , where he had heard that reception conditions were more decent and he would not have to live on the street . He was stopped by the police in GPE and taken to LOC , then to the NORP border for expulsion there . At the last moment , the NORP police decided not to expel him , according to the applicant because of the presence of the NORP police .

GPE and GPE have ratified the DATE LAW relating to ORG ( “ LAW ” ) , which defines the circumstances in which a ORG must grant refugee status to those who request it , as well as the rights and duties of such persons .

In the present case , the central Article is LAW , which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No Contracting State shall expel or return ( ‘ ORG ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion . ”

In its Note on international protection of CARDINAL DATE ( A / AC.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG , whose task it is to oversee how the GPE Parties apply LAW , stated the following in regard to the principle of “ non - refoulement ” :

“ The obligation of GPE not to expel , return of refoule refugees to territories where their life of freedom would be threatened is a cardinal protection principle enshrined in the [ LAW , to which no reservations are permitted . In many ways , the principle is the logical complement to the right to seek asylum recognised in LAW . It has come to be considered a rule of customary international law binding on all GPE . In addition , international human rights law has established non - refoulement as a fundamental component of the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . The duty not to refoule is also recognised as applying to refugees irrespective of their formal recognition , thus obviously including asylum - seekers whose status has not yet been determined . It encompasses any measure attributable to a ORG which could have the effect of returning an asylum - seeker or refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened , or where he or she would risk persecution . This includes rejection at the frontier , interception and indirect refoulement , whether of an individual seeking asylum or in situations of mass influx . ”

Fundamental rights , as guaranteed by the ORG , are part of ORG law and are recognised in the following terms :

“ The ORG is founded on the values of respect for human dignity , freedom , democracy , equality , the rule of law and respect for human rights , including the rights of persons belonging to minorities ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The Union recognises the rights , freedoms and principles set out in GPE ORG of DATE , as adapted at GPE , on DATE , which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties .

Fundamental rights , as guaranteed by LAW and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the member GPE , shall constitute general principles of the ORG ’s law . ”

The issues of particular relevance to the present judgment are covered by Title V ( “ Area of freedom , security and justice ” ) of Part CARDINAL of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on Union policies and internal actions ” of the Union . In LAW Title , LAW stipulates :

“ CARDINAL . The Union shall constitute an area of freedom , security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the member GPE .

It ... shall frame a common policy on asylum , immigration and external border control , based on solidarity between member ORG , which is fair towards third - country nationals . ... ”

LAW V concerns “ Policies on border checks , asylum and immigration ” . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL stipulates as follows :

“ The ORG shall develop a common policy on asylum , subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third - country national requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non - refoulement . This policy must be in accordance with LAW ... and other relevant treaties . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , for the ORG ’s legislative bodies to adopt a uniform status of asylum and subsidiary protection , as well as criteria and mechanisms for determining which member ORG is responsible for considering an application for asylum .

The Charter of Fundamental Rights , which has been part of the primary law of ORG since the entry into force of LAW , contains an express provision guaranteeing the right to asylum , as follows :

“ The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of LAW of DATE and the LAW of DATE relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the LAW establishing ORG . ”

Since ORG of Tampere in DATE , ORG has organised the implementation of a common NORP asylum system .

The first phase ( DATE ) saw the adoption of several legal instruments setting minimum common standards regarding the reception of asylum - seekers , asylum procedures and the conditions to be met in order to be recognised as being in need of international protection , as well as rules for determining which member ORG is responsible for examining an application for asylum ( “ the GPE system ” ) .

The second phase is currently under way . The aim is to further harmonise and improve protection standards with a view to introducing a common NORP asylum system by DATE . ORG announced certain proposals in its policy plan on asylum of DATE ( COM(CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) .

Council Regulation No . CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member GPE by a third - country national ( “ FAC ” ) applies to the member GPE of ORG and to GPE , GPE and GPE .

The Regulation replaces the provisions of the Convention determining the ORG responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member GPE of ORG , signed on DATE ( “ the Dublin Convention ” ) .

An additional ORG , No . CARDINAL of DATE , lays down rules for the application of GPE .

DATE . Recital CARDINAL of LAW states that it is part of a common policy on asylum aimed at progressively establishing an area of freedom , security and justice open to those who , forced by circumstances , legitimately seek protection in the ORG .

Recital CARDINAL affirms that LAW is based on the presumption that the member GPE respect the principle of non - refoulement enshrined in LAW and are considered as safe countries .

Under LAW , the member GPE must determine , based on a hierarchy of objective criteria ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , which member ORG bears responsibility for examining an asylum application lodged on their territory . The aim is to avoid multiple applications and to guarantee that each asylum - seeker ’s case is dealt with by a single member ORG .

Where it is established that an asylum - seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a member ORG having come from a third country , the member ORG thus entered is responsible for examining the application for asylum ( LAW ) . This responsibility ceases DATE after the date on which the irregular border - crossing took place .

Where the criteria in the ORG indicate that another member ORG is responsible , that ORG is requested to take charge of the asylum - seeker and examine the application for asylum . The requested ORG must answer the request within DATE from the date of receipt of the request . Failure to reply within DATE is understood as constituting an acceptance of the request to take charge of the asylum - seeker ( LAW DATE ) .

Where the requested member ORG accepts that it should take charge of an asylum - seeker , the member ORG in which the application for asylum was lodged must notify the asylum - seeker of the decision to transfer him or her , stating the reasons . The transfer must be carried out at the latest within DATE following acceptance of the request to take charge . Where the transfer does not take place within that time - limit , responsibility for processing the application lies with the member ORG in which the application for asylum was lodged ( Article CARDINAL ) .

By way of derogation from the general rule , each member ORG may examine an application for asylum lodged with it by a third - country national , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in the Dublin Regulation ( LAW ) . This is called the “ sovereignty ” clause . In such cases , the ORG concerned becomes the member ORG responsible and assumes the obligations associated with that responsibility .

Furthermore , any member ORG , even where it is not responsible under the criteria set out in ORG , may bring together family members , as well as other dependant relatives , on humanitarian grounds based in particular on family or cultural considerations ( LAW ) . This is known as the “ humanitarian ” clause . In this case , that member ORG will , at the request of another member ORG , examine the application for asylum of the person concerned . The persons concerned must consent .

DATE . Another Council Regulation , No . CARDINAL of DATE , provides for the establishment of the PERSON system for the comparison of fingerprints ( “ LAW ” ) . It requires the GPE to register asylum - seekers’ fingerprints . The data are transmitted to PERSON ’s central unit , run by ORG , which stores them in its central database and compares them with the data already stored there .

On DATE ORG transmitted a report to ORG and ORG on the evaluation of the GPE system ( COM(CARDINAL ) CARDINAL final ) . On DATE it made public its proposal for a recasting of ORG ) CARDINAL final/CARDINAL ) . The purpose of the reform is to improve the efficiency of the system and ensure that all the needs of persons seeking international protection are covered by the procedure for determining responsibility .

The proposal aims to set in place a mechanism for suspending transfers under the GPE system , so that , on the one hand , member GPE whose asylum systems are already under particularly heavy pressure are not placed under even more pressure by such transfers and , on the other hand , so that asylum - seekers are not transferred to member GPE which can not offer them a sufficient level of protection , particularly in terms of reception conditions and access to the asylum procedure ( LAW proposal ) . The ORG concerned must apply to ORG for a decision . The transfers may be suspended for DATE . The ORG may extend the suspension for DATE at its own initiative or at the request of the ORG concerned .

The proposal , examined under the codecision procedure , was adopted by ORG at first reading on DATE and submitted to the Commission and the ORG .

At the Informal Justice and ORG meeting in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE , the NORP Presidency of ORG placed on the agenda an exchange of views on the means of arriving at a single asylum procedure and a uniform standard of international protection by DATE . The discussions focused in particular on what priority the ORG should give to negotiations on the recasting of LAW and on whether the ministers would back the inclusion of the temporary suspension clause .

ORG of ORG ) , which subsequently became ORG of ORG ( CJEU ) upon the entry into force of LAW , has delivered CARDINAL judgment concerning ORG . In the NORP case ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) the ORG was asked to clarify the interpretation of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW concerning the taking of responsibility for an asylum application and the calculation of the deadline for making the transfer where the legislation of the requesting member ORG provided for appeals to have suspensive effect . The ORG found that time started to run following the decision on the merits of the request .

The ORG has recently received a request from ORG ( GPE ) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation to be given to the sovereignty clause in LAW ( GPE and Others , case CCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

CARDINAL other NORP texts supplement LAW .

Council Directive CARDINAL of DATE laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum - seekers in the member GPE ( “ the Reception Directive ” ) , came into force on DATE , DATE of its publication in ORG of ORG ( ORG DATE L CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . It requires the member GPE to guarantee asylum - seekers :

– certain material reception conditions , including housing , food and clothing , in kind or in the form of financial allowances ; the allowances must be sufficient to protect the asylum - seeker from extreme need ;

– arrangements to maintain family unity ;

– medical and psychological care ; and

– access for minors to the education system , and to language classes where necessary for them to undergo normal schooling .

In DATE ORG asked ORG now the ORG ) to examine whether GPE was fulfilling its obligations concerning the reception of refugees . In a judgment of DATE ( Case C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL Commission v. GPE ) , the LOC found that GPE had failed to fulfil its obligations under LAW . The NORP authorities subsequently transposed the Reception Directive .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to GPE announcing that it was bringing new proceedings against it .

Council Directive CARDINAL of DATE on minimum standards on procedures in member GPE for granting and withdrawing refugee status ( “ the Procedures Directive ” ) , which came into force on DATE , DATE of its publication in ORG ( ORG DATE L CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) , guarantees the rights listed below .

– An application for asylum can not be rejected on the sole ground that it has not been made as soon as possible . In addition , applications shall be examined individually , objectively and impartially .

– Asylum applicants have the right to remain in the member ORG pending the outcome of the examination of their application .

– The member GPE are required to ensure that decisions concerning applications for asylum are given in writing and that , where an application is rejected , the reasons are stated in the decision and information on how to challenge a negative decision is given in writing .

– Asylum - seekers shall be informed of the procedure to be followed , of their rights and obligations , and of the result of the decision taken by the determining authority .

– Asylum - seekers shall receive the services of an interpreter for submitting their case to the competent authorities whenever necessary .

– Asylum - seekers shall not be denied the opportunity to communicate with the ORG . More generally , the member GPE shall allow the ORG to have access to asylum applicants , including those in detention , as well as to information on asylum applications and procedures , and to present its views to any competent authorities .

– Applicants for asylum shall have the opportunity , at their own cost , to consult in an effective manner a legal adviser . In the event of a negative decision by a determining authority , member GPE shall ensure that free legal assistance is granted on request . This right may be subject to restrictions ( choice of counsel restricted to legal advisers specifically designated by national law , appeals limited to those likely to succeed , or free legal aid limited to applicants who lack sufficient resources ) .

ORG initiated proceedings against GPE in DATE for failure to honour its obligations , because of the procedural deficiencies in the NORP asylum system , and brought the case before ORG now the CJEU ) . Following the transposition of the Procedures Directive into NORP law in DATE , the case was struck out of the list .

On DATE ORG brought proceedings against GPE before the ORG on the ground that the NORP authorities had not fully transposed LAW in particular , the minimum obligations concerning the holding of personal interviews .

In its proposal for recasting the Procedures Directive , presented on DATE ( COM(CARDINAL ) CARDINAL final ) , ORG considered strengthening the obligation to provide information to the applicant . It also provided for a full and ex nunc review of first - instance decisions by a court or tribunal and specified that the notion of effective remedy required a review both of facts and of points of law . It further introduced provisions to give appeals automatic suspensive effect . The proposed amendments were intended to improve consistency with the evolving case - law regarding such principles as the right to defence , equality of arms , and the right to effective judicial protection .

Council Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE concerns minimum standards for the qualification and status of third - country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( “ the LAW ” ) . It entered into force DATE after its publication in ORG ( ORG CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .

This Directive contains a set of criteria for granting refugee or subsidiary protection status and laying down the rights attached to each status . It introduces a harmonised system of temporary protection for persons not covered by LAW but who nevertheless need international protection , such as victims of widespread violence or civil war .

ORG now the ORG ) has delivered CARDINAL judgments concerning the Qualification Directive : the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( CCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , and PERSON and Others judgment of DATE ( Joined Cases CCARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , ORG and CCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In addition to the reports published following his visits to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG for Human Rights issued a Recommendation concerning the rights of aliens wishing to enter a ORG member ORG and the enforcement of expulsion orders ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , dated DATE , which states , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right , on arrival at the border of a member ORG , to be treated with respect for his or her human dignity rather than automatically considered to be a criminal or guilty of fraud .

NORP On arrival , everyone whose right of entry is disputed must be given a hearing , where necessary with the help of an interpreter whose fees must be met by the country of arrival , in order to be able , where appropriate , to lodge a request for asylum . This must entail the right to open a file after having been duly informed , in a language which he or she understands , about the procedure to be followed . The practice of refoulement ‘ at the arrival ORG thus becomes unacceptable .

As a rule there should be no restrictions on freedom of movement . Wherever possible , detention must be replaced by other supervisory measures , such as the provision of guarantees or surety or other similar measures . Should detention remain the only way of guaranteeing an alien ’s physical presence , it must not take place , systematically , at a police station or in a prison , unless there is no practical alternative , and in such case must last no longer than is strictly necessary for organising a transfer to a specialised centre .

On no account must holding centres be viewed as prisons .

It is essential that the right of judicial remedy within the meaning of LAW ] be not only guaranteed in law but also granted in practice when a person alleges that the competent authorities have contravened or are likely to contravene a right guaranteed by LAW ] . The right of effective remedy must be guaranteed to anyone wishing to challenge a refoulement or expulsion order . It must be capable of suspending enforcement of an expulsion order , at least where contravention of LAW of the [ Convention ] is alleged . ”

The reception conditions of asylum - seekers in GPE are regulated primarily by Presidential Decree ( “ PD ” ) no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL transposing the Reception Directive . The provisions of this text applicable to the present judgment may be summarised as follows .

The authority responsible for receiving and examining the asylum application issues an asylum applicant ’s card free of charge immediately after the results of the fingerprint check become known and in any event DATE after the asylum application was lodged . This card , called the “ pink card ” , permits the applicant to remain in GPE throughout the period during which his or her application is being examined . The card is valid for DATE and renewable until the final decision is pronounced ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of PD no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL the competent authorities must take adequate steps to ensure that the material reception conditions are made available to asylum - seekers . They must be guaranteed a standard of living in keeping with their state of health and sufficient for their subsistence and to protect their fundamental rights . These measures may be subjected to the condition that the persons concerned are indigent .

An asylum - seeker with no home and no means of paying for accommodation will be housed in a reception centre or another place upon application to the competent authorities ( LAW ) . According to information provided by ORG , in DATE there were CARDINAL reception centres for asylum - seekers in different parts of the country , with a total capacity of CARDINAL places ; CARDINAL of them were reserved for unaccompanied minors .

Asylum - seekers have access to vocational training programmes under the same conditions as NORP nationals ( LAW ) .

If they are financially indigent and not insured in any way , asylum - seekers are entitled to free medical care and hospital treatment . First aid is also free ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

When the administrative expulsion of an alien is permitted under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that alien is suspected of intending to abscond , considered to be a threat to public order or hinders the preparation of his or her departure or the expulsion procedure , provisional detention is possible until the adoption , within DATE , of the expulsion decision ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Until PERSON no . DATE came into force , administrative detention was for DATE . It is now DATE and , in certain circumstances , may be extended by DATE .

An appeal to ORG against an expulsion order does not suspend the detention ( section CARDINAL of PERSON no . PERSON ) .

Where section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) is found to apply upon arrival at FAC , the persons concerned are placed in the detention centre next to the airport . Elsewhere in the country , they are held either in detention centres for asylum - seekers or in police stations .

Under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , lodging an application for asylum is not a criminal offence and can not , therefore , justify the applicant ’s detention , even if he or she entered the country illegally .

The provisions applicable to the applicant ’s asylum application are found in the following PDs : PD no . CARDINAL on the granting of refugee status and its withdrawal and the expulsion of an alien , residence permits for family members and means of cooperation with the ORG ; and ORG no . ORG Directive PERSON ( “ the Procedures Directive ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as amended by ORG no . CARDINAL .

All nationals of third countries or stateless persons have the right to apply for asylum . The authorities responsible for receiving and examining the applications ensure that all adults are able to exercise their right to lodge an application provided that they present themselves before the authorities in person ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The authorities immediately inform asylum - seekers of their rights and obligations by giving them a brochure , in a language they understand , describing the procedure for examining asylum applications and the asylum - seeker ’s rights and obligations . If the asylum - seeker does not understand the language used in the form , or is illiterate , he is informed orally , with the assistance of an interpreter ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of PD no . CARDINAL and LAW a ) of PD no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

An information brochure has been drafted in collaboration with the ORG and exists in CARDINAL languages ( LANGUAGE , LANGUAGE , NORP , NORP , NORP and NORP ) .

When asylum - seekers arrive at FAC , the obligation to provide this information lies with the security services present at the airport . Interpretation is provided by interpreters from the LOC police headquarters , non - governmental organisations or airport staff .

ORG . Asylum - seekers must cooperate with the competent authorities ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . In particular , they must inform them of any change of address ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

If they have not already done so at the airport , asylum - seekers must then report , on a DATE , to ORG at the LOC police headquarters , to submit their applications for asylum . Since PD no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( Article CARDINAL ) entered into force , the lodging of asylum applications has been decentralised to the CARDINAL police headquarters in different parts of the country .

Asylum - seekers who have applied for asylum at the airport must report within DATE to the LOC police headquarters to register their place of residence .

They are then invited to the police headquarters for an individual interview , during which they may be represented . The interview is held with the assistance of an interpreter and the person concerned is asked to confirm all the information contained in the application and to give details of their identity , the route by which they arrived in GPE and the reasons why they fled their country of origin ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Until DATE , after the interview the police officer in charge of the interview transmitted the asylum application to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL refugee advisory committees within ORG ( now ORG ) for an opinion . These committees were made up of police officers and municipal representatives and in some cases the ORG was an observer . The committee to which the application was referred transmitted an opinion , in the form of an internal report , to the LOC police headquarters , which gave its decision .

PD no . DATE provides for the decentralisation of the examination of asylum applications at first instance and the setting up of refugee advisory committees in all CARDINAL police headquarters around the country ( LAW ) . The examination procedure itself has not changed , but it now takes place in all CARDINAL police headquarters in the different regions .

The decisions are taken on an individual basis , after careful , objective and impartial examination . The authorities gather and assess precise , detailed information from reliable sources , such as that supplied by the ORG on the general situation in the country of origin ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As at every other stage of the procedure , applicants are provided with an interpreter at the ORG ’s expense ( LAW ( b ) of ORG no . CARDINAL ) .

They have the right to consult legal or other counsel at their own expense ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

NORP The decision is served on the applicant or his or her lawyer or legal representative ( LAW ( d ) of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On this subject , point CARDINAL in the brochure reads as follows :

“ ... The [ pink ] card must mention the place of residence you have declared or the reception centre assigned to you for your stay . When the decision is given , it will be sent to the address you declared ; that is why it is important to inform the police of any change of address without delay . ”

NORP If the address is unknown , the decision is sent to the municipality where the head office of the service where the asylum application was lodged is located , where it will be displayed on a municipal notice board and communicated to the ORG ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The information is communicated in a language which the asylum - seeker may reasonably be supposed to understand if he or she is not represented and has no legal assistance ( LAW ( e ) of ORG no . CARDINAL ) .

Until DATE , the refugee advisory committees examined asylum applications at second instance where these had been rejected ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The ORG sat on these committees ( LAW no . MONEY ) . Thereafter , it was possible to apply to ORG to quash the decision . LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL did away with the second - instance role of the refugee advisory committees . Since DATE appeals against the first - instance decision have lain directly to ORG . In DATE the ORG decided that it would no longer take part in the procedure .

Unless the applicant has already been given the relevant information in writing , a decision to reject an application must mention the possibility of lodging an appeal , the time - limit for doing so and the consequences of letting the deadline pass ( Articles QUANTITY and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( e ) of ORG no . CARDINAL ) .

Appeals to ORG do not suspend the execution of an expulsion order issued following a decision to reject an application for asylum . However , aliens have the right to appeal against a deportation order within DATE of receiving notification thereof . The decision is then given within DATE from DATE on which the appeal was lodged . This type of appeal suspends the enforcement of the expulsion decision . Where detention is ordered at the same time as expulsion , the appeal suspends the expulsion but not the detention ( section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Asylum - seekers are entitled to legal aid to lodge appeals to ORG provided that the appeals are not manifestly inadmissible or ill - founded ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Law no . DATE , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) ) , authorises the administrative expulsion of an alien in particular when his or her presence in GPE is a threat to public order or national security . Aliens are considered to represent such a threat if there are criminal proceedings pending against them for an offence punishable by CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Illegally leaving the country and using a false passport or other travel document are criminal offences under sections MONEY ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

However , asylum applicants and refugees are excluded from the scope of this PERSON ( sections CARDINAL(c ) and CARDINAL ) ) . Asylum - seekers may remain in the country until the administrative procedure for examining their application has been completed , and can not be removed by any means ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

NORP In exceptional cases , particularly for humanitarian reasons , the Minister of Public Order ( now the Minister of ORG ) may authorise the temporary residence of an alien whose application for refugee status has been rejected , until it becomes possible for him or her to leave the country ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Where such authorisation is given for humanitarian reasons , the criteria taken into account are the objective impossibility of removal or return to the country of origin for reasons of force majeure , such as serious health reasons , an international boycott of the country of origin , civil conflicts with mass human rights violations , or the risk of treatment contrary to LAW being inflicted in the country of origin ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In this last case , ORG considers that taking into consideration the risks in respect of LAW is not an option but an obligation for the administrative authorities ( see , for example , judgments LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Subsidiary protection may also be granted in conformity with PD no . ORG , which transposes ORG ( “ the LAW ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Following the parliamentary elections held in GPE in DATE , the new government set up an expert committee to give an opinion on the reform of the asylum system in GPE . Composed of experts from ORG , ORG , and from the ORG , ORG and the Ombudsman ’s Office , as well as academics , the committee was asked to propose amendments to the current law and practice and make suggestions concerning the composition and modus operandi of a new civil authority to deal with applications for asylum , composed not of police officers , like DATE , but of civil servants . It is also envisaged to restore the appellate role of the refugee advisory committees .

The proposals of the expert committee were submitted to ORG on DATE and a bill is being prepared . According to NORP Prime Minister PERSON , speaking at a press conference on DATE with the participation of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees , Antonio Guterres , the aim pursued is to reform the legislative framework “ to bring it into line with the DATE [ LAW on [ the Status of ] Refugees and with NORP law ” .

According to statistics published by the ORG , in DATE GPE was in seventh place on the list of ORG member GPE in terms of the number of asylum applicants received , with a total of CARDINAL applications lodged DATE ( compared with CARDINAL in DATE ) . In total , PERCENT of the foreign nationals who entered ORG in DATE entered through GPE .

For DATE , the ORG reports a success rate at first instance ( the proportion of positive decisions in relation to all the decisions taken ) of PERCENT for refugee status under LAW ( CARDINAL people ) , and PERCENT for humanitarian reasons or subsidiary protection ( CARDINAL people ) . In total , CARDINAL appeals were lodged against unfavourable decisions . They led to CARDINAL people being granted refugee status by virtue of LAW and CARDINAL for humanitarian reasons or subsidiary protection . Where appeals were concerned , the respective success rates were PERCENT and PERCENT . By comparison , in DATE the average success rate at first instance was PERCENT in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL countries which , along with GPE , receive the largest number of applications ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) .

Until DATE , PERCENT of asylum applications went through the LOC police headquarters . Since the processing of asylum applications was decentralised to police headquarters all over the country , PERCENT of the applications have been handled by the LOC police headquarters .

ORG is the administrative body responsible for registering asylum applications after consulting the PERSON database . It is also responsible for interviewing asylum - seekers about their background in order to determine whether GPE is the country responsible under LAW for examining the asylum application . These aspects of the procedure are regulated by section CARDINAL/CARDINAL of LAW .

After the interview , ORG completes the “ GPE ” request form . The form contains sections for general information about the asylum - seekers and for more specific details of how they got to GPE , their state of health and their reasons for coming to GPE . There is no provision for asylum - seekers to be assisted by a lawyer during the interview .

Where ORG considers that GPE is responsible ( positive decision ) under the GPE criteria or by application of the special clauses , or because the deadline for transfer has passed , it transmits the application to ORG ( ORG ) , the NORP body responsible for examining asylum applications .

Where ORG considers that GPE is not responsible for examining the application ( negative decision ) , it submits a request to the ORG responsible to take charge of the application . If that ORG agrees , explicitly or tacitly , ORG rejects the asylum application and issues a decision refusing a residence permit , together with an order to leave the country .

Reasons must be given for negative decisions ordering the transfer of asylum - seekers . When the transfer is to GPE , the reasoning for the order to leave the country refers to the presumption that GPE honours its ORG and international obligations in asylum matters and to the fact that recourse to the sovereignty clause is not obligatory under LAW . In some cases , mention is made of the fact that the applicant has adduced no evidence demonstrating the concrete consequences of the general situation for his or her individual situation .

NORP There are no accurate statistics for determining the extent to which ORG applies the sovereignty clause . The positive decisions taken do not specify whether the clause was applied . At most , it appears from the data provided in the DATE Annual Report of ORG that in DATE GPE issued CARDINAL requests to other member GPE to take charge of asylum applications , CARDINAL of which were to GPE , and that a total of CARDINAL applications were referred to the ORG .

While efforts are being made to determine which ORG is responsible , the alien may be held or detained in a given place for as long as is strictly necessary , but for no longer than DATE .

Decisions taken by ORG concerning residence may be challenged by appealing to ORG . ORG is an administrative court established by LAW reforming the PERSON d’Etat and setting up ORG . It took over the powers of the ORG d’Etat in disputes concerning aliens , as well as those of ORG .

Appeals against orders to leave the country do not have suspensive effect . The law accordingly provides for the possibility of lodging an application for a stay of execution of such an order . Such an application for a stay of execution must be lodged prior to or , at the latest , at the same time as the appeal against the order .

The first cases in which asylum - seekers reported difficulties in accessing the asylum procedure in GPE date back to DATE . In its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG stayed the execution of a “ GPE ” transfer to GPE under the extremely urgent procedure because the NORP authorities had not responded to the request for them to take charge of the asylum application concerned and ORG had not sought individual guarantees . ORG found that a tacit agreement failed to provide sufficient guarantees of effective processing of the asylum application by the NORP authorities . Since DATE , however , ORG no longer seeks such guarantees and takes its decisions based on tacit agreements . ORG no longer questions this approach , considering that GPE has transposed the LAW .

In assessing the reasoning for the order to leave the country , ORG takes into consideration first and foremost the facts revealed to ORG during the “ GPE ” interview and recorded in the administrative file . Should evidence be adduced subsequently , including documents of a general nature , in a letter to ORG during the “ GPE ” examination process or in an appeal against the order to leave the country , it is not systematically taken into account by ORG , on the grounds that it was not adduced in good time or that , because it was not mentioned in the asylum applicant ’s statements to ORG , it is not credible ( see , for example , judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE and judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In cases where ORG has taken into account international reports submitted by “ GPE ” asylum applicants confirming the risk of a violation of LAW because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the conditions of detention and reception in GPE , its case - law is divided as to the conclusions to be drawn .

Certain divisions have largely been inclined to take the general situation in GPE into account . For example , in judgments nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG considered that ORG should have considered the allegations of ill - treatment in GPE :

“ The applicant party informed the other party in good time that his removal to GPE would , in his opinion , amount to a violation of LAW , in particular because of the inhuman and degrading treatment he alleged that he had suffered and would no doubt suffer again there . ... ORG notes that in arguing that he faced the risk , in the event that he was sent back to GPE , of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to LAW , and in basing his arguments on reliable documentary sources which he communicated to the other party , the applicant formulated an explicit and detailed objection concerning an important dimension of his removal to GPE . The other party should therefore have replied to that objection in its decision in order to fulfil its obligations with regard to reasoning . ”

NORP In the same vein , in judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG stayed the execution of a transfer to GPE in the following terms :

“ ORG considers that the terms of the report of CARDINAL DATE of the Commissioner for Human Rights of ORG ... and the photos illustrating the information contained in it concerning the conditions of detention of asylum - seekers are particularly significant . ... While it post - dates the judgments of the ORG and of ORG cited in the decision taken , the content of this report is clear enough to establish that despite its recent efforts to comply with proper NORP standards in matters of asylum and the fundamental rights of asylum - seekers , the NORP authorities are not yet able to offer asylum applicants the minimum reception or procedural guarantees . ”

Other divisions have opted for another approach , which consists in taking into account the failure to demonstrate a link between the general situation in GPE and the applicant ’s individual situation . For example , in judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , rejecting a request for a stay of execution of a transfer to GPE , ORG reasoned as follows :

[ Translation by the Registry ]

“ The general information provided by the applicant in his file mainly concerns the situation of aliens seeking international protection in GPE , the circumstances in which they are transferred to and received in GPE , the way they are treated and the way in which the asylum procedure in GPE functions and is applied . The materials establish no concrete link showing that the deficiencies reported would result in GPE violating its non - refoulement obligation vis - à - vis aliens who , like the applicant , were transferred to GPE ... Having regard to the above , the applicant has not demonstrated that the enforcement of the impugned decision would expose him to a risk of virtually irreparable harm . ”

NORP In CARDINAL cases in DATE the same divisions took the opposite approach and decided to suspend transfers to GPE , considering that ORG , in its reasoning , should have taken into account the information on the general situation in GPE . These are judgments nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE .

In order to ensure the consistency of its case - law , the President of ORG convened a plenary session on DATE which delivered CARDINAL judgments ( judgments FAC . CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) in which the reasoning may be summarised as follows :

– GPE is a member of ORG , governed by the rule of law , a party to the Convention and LAW and bound by Community legislation in asylum matters ;

– based on the principle of intra - Community trust , it must be presumed that the ORG concerned will comply with its obligations ( referring to the ORG ’s case - law in GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) ;

– in order to reverse that presumption the applicant must demonstrate in concreto that there is a real risk of his being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW in the country to which he is being removed ;

– simple reference to general reports from reliable sources showing that there are reception problems or that refoulement is practised or the mere fact that the asylum procedure in place in a ORG member ORG is defective does not suffice to demonstrate the existence of such a risk .

NORP The provisions concerning referrals to the PERSON d’Etat and the latter ’s powers are found in the laws on the ORG d’Etat consolidated on CARDINAL DATE .

A lawyer may lodge an administrative appeal with the ORG d’Etat within DATE of notification of the judgment of ORG .

If the appeal is to be examined by the ORG d’Etat , it must be declared admissible . It will be declared admissible if it is not manifestly inadmissible or devoid of purpose ; if it is claimed that there has been a breach of the law or a failure to comply with essential procedural requirements or with statutory formalities required on pain of nullity , as long as that claim is not manifestly ill - founded and the alleged error may have influenced the decision and is sufficient to justify setting it aside ; or if its examination is necessary to guarantee the consistency of the case - law .

This procedure does not have suspensive effect . The ORG d’Etat gives judgment on the admissibility of the application in principle within DATE .

Where the application is declared admissible , the ORG d’Etat gives a ruling within DATE and may overturn decisions of ORG for breach of the law or for failure to comply with essential procedural requirements or with statutory formalities required on pain of nullity .

The judgments referred to in the case file show that the ORG d’Etat does not question the approach of ORG explained above and considers that no issues are raised under LAW ( see , for example , judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

Decisions taken by ORG concerning detention ( orders to detain applicants in a given place and orders to re - detain them ) may be challenged in the courts and tribunals . In its examination of applications for release , ORG ) has developed case - law that takes into account the risks faced by the persons concerned were they to be sent back to GPE , as well as the ORG ’s finding that GPE was violating its obligations under LAW see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Since DATE reports have regularly been published by national , international and non - governmental organisations deploring the reception conditions of asylum - seekers in GPE .

The following is a list of the main reports :

– ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CPT ) , following its visit to GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , report published on DATE ;

– Pro Asyl , The Truth May Be Bitter But It Must Be Told : The Situation of Refugees in the LOC and the Practices of ORG , DATE ;

– CPT , following its visit to GPE from DATE , report published on DATE ;

– ORG , GPE : No Place for an Asylum - Seeker , DATE ;

– ORG ( ECRE ) , Spotlight on GPE DATE EU Asylum Lottery under FAC , DATE ;

– Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers ( ORG ) , A FAC with the Right to Asylum in DATE Greek Asylum Policy and the Dublin II Regulation , DATE ;

– ORG , Position on the Return of Asylum - Seekers to GPE under LAW ” , DATE ;

– Human Rights Watch , Stuck in a Revolving Door – NORP and Other Asylum Seekers and Migrants at GPE / FAC to ORG , DATE ;

– Clandestino , Undocumented Migration : Counting the Uncountable : Data and Trends Across LOC , DATE ;

– Human Rights Watch , Left to Survive , DATE ;

– Cimade , ORG d’Asile : les Gens de “ GPE II ” – Parcours Juridique de Demandeurs d’Asile Soumis à une Réadmission selon le Règlement GPE II , DATE ;

– Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights , Mr T. Hammarberg , report prepared following his visit to GPE from CARDINAL to DATE , CARDINAL DATE ;

– CPT , report prepared following its visit to GPE from DATE , DATE ;

– NORP ORG and ORG , ORG Returned by GPE to GPE under LAW . Report on a LAW to Greece ( DATE ) , DATE ;

NORP Norwegian ORG ( ORG ) , ORG and GPE , Out the Back Door : The Dublin II Regulation and Illegal Deportations from GPE , DATE ;

– Human Rights Watch , GPE : Unsafe and ORG , DATE ;

– UNHCR , Observations on GPE as a Country of Asylum , DATE ;

– ORG , The Dublin II Trap : ORG to GPE , DATE ;

– ORG for Human Rights ( Greece ) , ORG , DATE ;

– ORG , Irregular Migrants and Asylum - Seekers Routinely Detained in Substandard Conditions , DATE .

The above - mentioned reports attest to a systematic practice of detaining asylum - seekers in GPE from DATE up to DATE following their arrival . The practice affects both asylum - seekers arriving in GPE for the first time and those transferred by a member ORG of ORG under LAW . Witnesses report that no information is given concerning the reasons for the detention .

All the centres visited by the bodies and organisations that produced the reports listed above describe a similar situation to varying degrees of gravity : overcrowding , dirt , lack of space , lack of ventilation , little or no possibility of taking a walk , no place to relax , insufficient mattresses , dirty mattresses , no free access to toilets , inadequate sanitary facilities , no privacy , limited access to care . Many of the people interviewed also complained of insults , particularly racist insults , proffered by staff and the use of physical violence by guards .

For example , following its visit to GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the ORG reported :

“ The building of the new special holding facilities for foreigners ... represented an opportunity for GPE to adopt an approach more in line with the norms and standards developed within LOC . Regrettably , the authorities have maintained a carceral approach , often in threadbare conditions and with no purposeful activities and minimal health provision , for persons who are neither convicted nor suspected of a criminal offence and who have , as described by many NORP interlocutors , often experienced harrowing journeys to arrive in GPE . ”

In DATE the ORG inspected CARDINAL police stations and holding centres for migrants run by ORG and concluded that “ persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement officials in GPE run a real risk of being ill - treated ” . It added :

“ [ Since the ORG ’s last visit to GPE , in DATE ] there has been no improvement as regards the manner in which persons detained by law enforcement agencies are treated . The ORG ’s delegation heard , once again , a considerable number of allegations of ill - treatment of detained persons by law enforcement officials . Most of the allegations consisted of slaps , punches , kicks and blows with batons , inflicted upon arrest or during questioning by police officers . ... In several cases , the delegation ’s doctors found that the allegations of ill - treatment by law enforcement officials were consistent with injuries displayed by the detained persons concerned . ”

In DATE ORG expressed its concern in the following terms :

“ Although NORP police authorities did not give ORG unimpeded access to assess conditions of detention in the locations we asked to visit , we were able to gather testimonies from detainees that paint an alarming picture of police mistreatment , overcrowding , and unsanitary conditions , particularly in places where we were not allowed to visit , such as border police stations , the airport , GPE , and PERSON . The detention conditions and police abuses described in the CARDINAL preceding sections of this report certainly constitute inhuman and degrading treatment . ”

In its DATE report ORG observed :

“ In DATE CARDINAL people arrived in ORG ; in DATE they numbered CARDINAL and in DATE there were CARDINAL arrivals . ... A group of demonstrators are waiting for us : chanting ‘ no border , no nation , no deportation’ , CARDINAL of them demanding that the place be closed down . Arms reach out through the fencing , calling for help . CARDINAL large caged - in rooms each holding CARDINAL men : NORP , NORP , NORP , locked up DATE in appalling squalor . It is chilly in the late NORP DATE and people are sleeping on the bare concrete floor . There is a strong smell that reminds me of the makeshift holding areas in the waiting zone at FAC Most of the men have been there DATE , some for DATE . They do not understand why they are there . The men have been separated from the women and children . I go up to the second level : a NORP man with an infectious disease is being held in isolation in a small bungalow . The hangar where the women and children are held is the only open one . There are beds , but not enough , so there are mattresses on the bare concrete floor . It is DATE , but everyone complains that they are cold and there are not enough blankets . The last jail , the CARDINAL for minors . There are CARDINAL of them . ... ”

In his report dated DATE , ORG for Human Rights stated :

“ During the meeting with the Commissioner , the authorities in PERSON department informed him that as at DATE there were CARDINAL irregular migrants detained by the police in CARDINAL different places of detention in that department . The CARDINAL most common nationalities were : GPE ( CARDINAL ) , GPE ( CARDINAL ) , GPE ( DATE ) , GPE ( CARDINAL ) and GPE ( CARDINAL ) . On DATE , date of the Commissioner ’s visit , at the CARDINAL separate warehouse - type detention rooms of the NORP border guard station , which dates from DATE , there were CARDINAL young , male , irregular migrants in detention , most of them NORP . ... They were in fact crammed in the rooms , sleeping and stepping upon mattresses that had been placed on the floor and on a cement platform , one next to the other . In the bathrooms the conditions were squalid . Some detainees had obvious skin rashes on their arms and one with bare feet complained that the authorities did not provide him with shoes and clean clothes . ... On DATE the police authorities informed the Commissioner that at PERSON ( Fylakio ) there were CARDINAL inmates in CARDINAL detention rooms , the majority of them being of NORP and NORP nationalities . ”

The ORG visited the detention centre next to FAC in DATE . It noted :

“ The conditions in the separate cell block are of concern to the ORG ’s delegation . Each cell ( measuring QUANTITY ) had an official capacity of CARDINAL persons , already too high . In fact , the registers showed that on many occasions , for example in DATE , the occupancy rate reached CARDINAL and even CARDINAL persons per cell . An examination of the cells seemed to indicate that originally they had been designed for CARDINAL person as there was only a single plinth in the cells – certainly CARDINAL persons , preferably CARDINAL , should be held TIME in such cells . The sanitary facilities were outside the cells and the delegation heard many complaints that the police guards did not respond rapidly to requests to go to the toilet ; further , access to the shower appeared extremely limited , and CARDINAL persons , in the same cell , claimed they had not had a shower in DATE the overbearing hot , sweaty stench lent much credence to their allegation . The delegation also met a man who had spent DATE in CARDINAL of the cells with no change of clothes , no access to fresh air nor any exercise nor any purposeful activity . ”

Following its visit to GPE in DATE , the ORG noted that there had been no improvement as regards the manner in which persons detained were treated and reported cases of ill - treatment at the hands of the police officers in the deportation cell at FAC :

“ At Petru PERSON detention facility , a NORP national alleged that he had been slapped and kicked by the escorting police officers in the deportation cell at FAC after he had refused deportation . He further alleged that they had compressed his throat , pressed their fingers into his eye sockets , twisted his hands behind his back and kicked him on the back of the legs , the buttocks and in the abdomen , after which he had fainted . On examination by CARDINAL of the medical members of the delegation , the following injuries were observed : a small abrasion ( QUANTITY ) on the lower lip and a red linear contusion on the left cheek beneath the eye ( QUANTITY ) , which had CARDINAL abrasions therein ; diffuse areas of purplish bruising on both sides of the forehead and a reddish bruise ( QUANTITY ) on the centre of the chest ; swelling over the thyroid cartilage on the front of the neck and swelling of the outer parts of both upper arms ; on the right leg , beneath and lateral to the kneecap , a diffuse area of purplish bruising with a reddish area ( MONEY ) in its proximal part . ”

At the time of its visits in DATE and DATE , ORG described the detention centre next to the airport as follows :

“ The facility is divided into CARDINAL sectors . The first consists of CARDINAL cells , each approximately QUANTITY m. There is CARDINAL window in each cell , and the sector has CARDINAL separate toilets and showers . The second consists of CARDINAL large cells , each approximately QUANTITY m. There are separate toilets in the corridor outside the cells . The third sector consists of CARDINAL very small cells , each approximately QUANTITY m. The cells are arranged in a row , off a small corridor where a card phone is situated . On the opposite side of the corridor there are CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL showers .

During the DATE visit , ORG delegates were able to view the first CARDINAL sectors where GPE II returnees and other asylum - seekers were being held . The delegates observed that detainees were held in conditions of severe overcrowding and that the physical conditions were inadequate . Many asylum - seekers reported that they had been verbally abused by police officers .

During the organisation ’s visit in DATE , ORG representatives were allowed to visit all CARDINAL sectors . The police authorities told delegates that the first sector was used for the detention of GPE II returnees and other asylum - seekers , the second for the detention of female irregular migrants convicted for attempting to leave GPE with false documents and the third for the detention of male irregular migrants convicted for attempting to leave GPE with false documents .

During the DATE visit , there were CARDINAL asylum - seekers held in the first sector ( CARDINAL male and one female ) but no NORP returnees . In the second sector , CARDINAL females were held in one cell , QUANTITY of them pregnant . CARDINAL of the pregnant women complained several times that she could not breathe , and was asking when she could go outside her cell . In another cell there was a man with an injured leg . Those held in the first and second sector told ORG delegates that the police rarely unlocked the doors of their sectors . As a result , they did not have access to the water cooler situated outside , and were forced to drink water from the toilets . At the time of the visit approximately CARDINAL detainees were held in the third sector in conditions of severe overcrowding . Among them , delegates found a GPE II returnee . There were CARDINAL cells in total . The delegates were able to view CARDINAL of the cells , each of which contained CARDINAL bed ( a concrete base with a mattress on top ) and held CARDINAL individuals . There were not enough mattresses , and detainees slept on the floor . As a result of the overcrowding and mattresses on the floor , there was no space to move around . The detainees told ORG that , because of the lack of space , they could not all lie down and sleep at the same time . While the cells viewed had windows , the overcrowding meant that the ventilation was not sufficient . The heat in the cells was unbearable .

Detainees held in the third sector told ORG that the police officers did not allow them to walk in the corridor outside their cells , and that there were severe difficulties in gaining access to the toilets . At the time of the organisation ’s visit , detainees were knocking on the cell doors and desperately asking the police to let them go to the toilet . ORG delegates observed that some people who were allowed to go to the toilet were holding a plastic water bottle CARDINAL or almost completely full of urine . The police authorities admitted that in every cell detainees used plastic bottles for their toilet needs which they emptied when they were allowed to go to the toilet . The delegates also observed that the toilet facilities were dirty and the CARDINAL showers had neither door nor curtain , and thus lacked any privacy .

The FAC police authorities told ORG that the imposition of prison sentences on irregular migrants or asylum - seekers arrested at the airport for using false documents , who were unable to pay trial expenses , contributed to the overcrowding of the detention area .

At the time of the visit , the organisation observed a complete lack of hygiene products such as soap , shampoo and toilet paper in all sectors . In addition , many of those detained told the delegates they had no access to their luggage , so they did not have their personal belongings , including changes of clothes . Some said that , as a result , they had been wearing the same clothes for DATE . Furthermore , there was no opportunity for outside exercise at all . CARDINAL individuals complained that they did not have access to their medication because it was in their luggage . Similar reports were received during the DATE visit . In addition , concerns regarding access to medical assistance remained unchanged since DATE . The airport authorities told ORG that there was no regular doctor in the facility and medical care was provided only when requested by a detainee by calling the airport ’s first aid doctors . ”

Following their visit on DATE , Médecins sans GPE – GPE published a report which also described overcrowding in the detention centre ( CARDINAL detainees ) and appalling sanitary and hygiene conditions . In CARDINAL cells for families , with a capacity of CARDINAL people , CARDINAL people were being held without ventilation and with CARDINAL toilets and showers .

According to the people interviewed for the reports listed in paragraph CARDINAL above , when asylum - seekers were released the practice varied . At FAC they were either given a “ pink card ” directly or they were told to report to the LOC police headquarters to get one . Sometimes those in GPE for the first time were directly issued with an order to leave the country within DATE . If they arrived and were detained elsewhere in the country , the practice was more consistent and consisted of issuing them with an order to leave the country and sending them to a large city like GPE or GPE .

NORP In any event , it appears that they are given no information about the possibilities of accommodation . In particular , the people interviewed reported that no one told them that they should inform the authorities that they had nowhere to live , which is a prerequisite for the authorities to try to find them some form of accommodation .

NORP Those persons who have no family or relations in GPE and can not afford to pay rent just sleep on the streets . As a result , many homeless asylum - seekers , mainly single men but also families , have illegally occupied public spaces , like the makeshift camp in GPE , which was evacuated and torn down in DATE , or the old appeal court and certain parks in GPE .

Many of those interviewed reported a permanent state of fear of being attacked and robbed , and of complete destitution generated by their situation ( difficulty in finding food , no access to sanitary facilities , etc . ) .

Generally , the people concerned depend for their subsistence on civil society , ORG and some religious institutions .

Having a “ pink card ” does not seem to be of any benefit in obtaining assistance from the ORG and there are major bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining a temporary work permit . For example , to obtain a tax number the applicant has to prove that he has a permanent place of residence , which effectively excludes the homeless from the employment market . In addition , the health authorities do not appear to be aware of their obligations to provide asylum - seekers with free medical treatment or of the additional health risks faced by these people .

In DATE , ORG reported :

“ Asylum - seekers of all nationalities who manage to obtain and maintain their [ pink ] cards have little hope of receiving support from the government during the often protracted time their claims are pending . The homeless and destitute among them often lack housing accommodation and other basic forms of social assistance , in part , because GPE only has reception centre spaces for CARDINAL of the most needy and vulnerable asylum - seekers . Although CARDINAL of the CARDINAL reception centres are reserved for unaccompanied children , ORG met unaccompanied children , among others , who were living in the streets , parks , and in abandoned buildings because of a lack of accommodations and other social services . A DATE NORP boy registered with the police , but at the time ORG interviewed him was living on the street with no assistance whatsoever : ‘ I still do n’t have a place for me to live . The lawyers gave me an appointment to have a place to live . Now I sleep out on the streets . I do n’t live anywhere . I have cold in my body . I do n’t feel safe . I walk around until after CARDINAL or TIME and then I find a park to sleep in.’ ORG ) , ORG , and [ the ] ORG reported jointly in DATE on accommodations and social conditions awaiting GPE II returnees to GPE , finding the number of actual places available to such destitute asylum - seekers to be ‘ ORG and the conditions of the few accommodation centres ‘ PERSON . They observed : ‘ The large majority of asylum - seekers remain completely without social assistance with regard to accommodation and/or other forms of social assistance . GPE is in practice a country where asylum - seekers and refugees are almost entirely left to their own devices.’ ”

NORP The reports mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above describe the numerous obstacles that bar access to the asylum procedure or make it very difficult in practice for both first - time arrivals and persons transferred under LAW who pass through FAC .

The first - hand accounts collected by international organisations and non - governmental organisations and the resulting conclusions may be summarised as follows .

Very few applications for asylum are lodged directly with the security services at FAC because of the lack of staff but also , in certain cases , because of the lack of information that the services even exist .

When they arrive at the airport , asylum - seekers are systematically placed directly in detention before their situation has been clarified .

When they are released , those who have come to GPE for the first time are sometimes issued with an order to leave the country , printed in NORP , without having first been informed of the possibility of applying for asylum or contacting a lawyer for that purpose . It has even been known to happen that persons returned under LAW who had applied for asylum when they first arrived in GPE were issued with an order to leave the country on the ground that , in their absence , all the time - limits for lodging an appeal had expired .

At FAC several organisations have reported that the information brochure on the asylum procedure is not always given to persons returned under LAW . Nor are they given any other information about the procedures and deadlines or the possibility of contacting a lawyer or a non - governmental organisation to seek legal advice .

On the contrary , the police use “ tricks ” to discourage them from following the procedure . For example , according to several witnesses the police led them to believe that declaring an address was an absolute condition for the procedure to go ahead .

The DATE time - limit asylum - seekers are given to report to police headquarters is in fact far too short in practice . The offices concerned are practically inaccessible because of the number of people waiting and because asylum applications can be lodged only on DATE in DATE . In addition , the selection criteria at the entrance to the offices are arbitrary and there is no standard arrangement for giving priority to those wishing to enter the building to apply for asylum . There are occasions when CARDINAL of people turn up on DATE and CARDINAL applications are registered for DATE . At the present time CARDINAL applications are being registered per day , while CARDINAL people are waiting outside to complete various formalities . This results in a very long wait before obtaining an appointment for a first interview .

Because of the clearly insufficient provision for interpretation , the first interview is often held in a language the asylum - seeker does not understand . The interviews are superficial and limited in substance to asking the asylum - seeker why he came to GPE , with no questions at all about the situation in his country of origin . Further , in the absence of any legal aid the applicants can not afford a legal adviser and are very seldom accompanied by a lawyer .

As to access to the ORG , although any asylum - seeker can , in theory , lodge an application with the ORG and request the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG , it appears that the shortcomings mentioned above are so considerable that access to the Court for asylum - seekers is almost impossible . This would explain the small number of applications the ORG receives from asylum - seekers and the small number of requests it receives for interim measures against GPE .

The above - listed reports also denounce the deficiencies in the procedure for examining asylum applications .

In the vast majority of cases the applications are rejected at first instance because they are considered to have been lodged for economic reasons . Research carried out by the ORG in DATE reveals that out of CARDINAL decisions taken at first instance , CARDINAL were negative and worded in a stereotyped manner with no reference whatsoever to information about the countries of origin , no explanation of the facts on which the decision was based and no legal reasoning .

The reports denounce the lack of training , qualifications and/or competence of the police officers responsible for examining the asylum applications . In DATE , according to the ORG , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL officers at the LOC police headquarters responsible for examining asylum applications were specialists in asylum matters .

According to several accounts , it was not unusual for the decision rejecting the application and indicating the time - limit for appeal to be notified in a document written in NORP at the time of issue or renewal of the “ pink card ” . As the cards were renewed DATE , the asylum - seekers did not understand that their applications had in fact been rejected and that they had the right to appeal . If they failed to do so within the prescribed deadline , however , they were excluded from the procedure , found themselves in an illegal situation and faced the risk of being arrested and placed in detention pending their expulsion .

ORG for Human Rights and the ORG also emphasised that the notification procedure for “ persons with no known address ” did not work in practice . Thus , many asylum - seekers were unable to follow the progress of their applications and missed the deadlines .

The time taken for asylum applications to be examined at first instance and on appeal is very long . According to the ORG , in DATE , CARDINAL cases at first instance and CARDINAL cases on appeal were affected by delays . According to information sent to the Commissioner by ORG , the total number of asylum applications pending had reached CARDINAL in DATE .

Being opposed , inter alia , to the abolition in DATE of the second - instance role played by the refugee advisory committees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG announced in a press release on DATE that it would no longer be taking part in the asylum procedure in GPE .

As regards appeals to ORG , the reports mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above denounce the excessive length of the proceedings . According to ORG for Human Rights , the average duration at the present time was DATE . They also emphasise that an appeal against a negative decision does not automatically suspend the expulsion order and that separate proceedings have to be initiated in order to seek a stay of execution . These can last between DATE and DATE . Furthermore , they consider that the review exercised by ORG is not extensive enough to cover the essential details of complaints alleging Convention violations .

Lastly , they remark that in practice the legal aid system for lodging an appeal with ORG does not work . It is hindered by the reluctance and the resulting lack of lawyers on the legal aid list because of the length of the proceedings and the delays in their remuneration .

The risk of refoulement of asylum - seekers by the NORP authorities , be it indirectly , to GPE , or directly to the country of origin , is a constant concern . The reports listed in paragraph CARDINAL above , as well as the press , have regularly reported this practice , pointing out that the NORP authorities deport , sometimes collectively , both asylum - seekers who have not yet applied for asylum and those whose applications have been registered and who have been issued with “ pink cards ” . Expulsions to GPE are effected either at the unilateral initiative of the NORP authorities , at the border with GPE , or in the framework of the readmission agreement between GPE and GPE . It has been established that several of the people thus expelled were then sent back to GPE by the NORP authorities without their applications for asylum being considered .

Several reports highlight the serious risk of refoulement as soon as the decision is taken to reject the asylum application , because an appeal to ORG has no automatic suspensive effect .

On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the NORP Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy criticising the deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the conditions of reception of asylum - seekers in GPE and recommending the suspension of transfers to GPE . A copy was sent to ORG . The letter read as follows ( extracts ) :

“ The ORG is aware that the ORG , in its decision in GPE v. GPE [ ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ] ... recently decided that the transfer of an asylum - seeker to GPE did not present a risk of refoulement for the purposes of LAW . However , the ORG did not give judgment on compliance by GPE with its obligations under international law on refugees . In particular , the ORG said nothing about whether the conditions of reception of asylum - seekers were in conformity with regional and international standards of human rights protection , or whether asylum - seekers had access to fair consideration of their asylum applications , or even whether refugees were effectively able to exercise their rights under LAW . The ORG believes that this is still not the case . ”

It concluded :

“ For the above reasons the ORG maintains its assessment of the NORP asylum system and the recommendations formulated in its position of DATE , namely that governments should refrain from transferring asylum - seekers to GPE and take responsibility for examining the corresponding asylum applications themselves , in keeping with LAW of LAW . ”

GPE has been embroiled in an armed conflict since DATE . The present situation is based on the civil war of DATE , during which the mujahideen ( the veterans of the anti - NORP resistance , many of whose leaders now hold public office ) fought the ORG movement , and the fall - out from the attacks of DATE in GPE .

According to the ORG , the situation in GPE can be described as an intensifying armed conflict accompanied by serious and widespread targeted human rights violations . The NORP government and their international allies are pitted against groups of insurgents including the ORG , the PERSON and ORG . A complex array of legal and illegal armed groups and organised criminal groups also play an important role in the conflict . Despite efforts at reform , GPE is still faced with widespread corruption , lack of due process and an ineffective administration of justice . Human rights violations are rarely addressed or remedied by the justice system and impunity continues to be pervasive . The progressive strengthening of religious conservatism has pressured the NORP government and ORG into curtailing fundamental rights and freedoms .

In the above - mentioned document , the ORG states that most of the fighting is still in the south and south - eastern part of the country . In the south , the provinces of GPE and GPE , ORG strongholds , are the scene of fierce fighting . The conflict raging in the southern , south - eastern and eastern regions has displaced the population and caused numerous civilian casualties .

There is more and more evidence that the people implementing or thought to be implementing government projects and the non - governmental organisations or civil firms actually working or thought to be working with the international forces in GPE face a very high risk of being targeted by anti - government factions .

As to the possibilities of internal relocation , the ORG points out that no region of GPE is safe and that even if one were to be found , it might not be accessible as many of the main roads in GPE are dangerous .

In GPE the situation has deteriorated . Rising economic emigration is putting increasing pressure on the employment market and on resources such as infrastructure , land and drinking water . The situation is exacerbated by persistent drought , with the resultant spread of water - related diseases . Endemic unemployment and under - employment limit many people ’s ability to cater for their basic needs .

The ORG generally considers internal relocation as a reasonable alternative solution when protection can be provided in the relocation area by the person ’s family in the broad sense , their community or their tribe . However , these forms of protection are limited to regions where family or tribal links exist . Even in such situations , case - by - case analysis is necessary , as traditional social bonds in the country have been worn away by DATE of war , mass displacement of refugees and the growing rural exodus .

Bearing in mind the recommendations contained in these directives , the NORP body responsible for examining asylum applications ( ORG ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) stated in a document published in DATE , entitled ORG , that they granted protection to a large number of NORP asylum - seekers from particularly dangerous regions .