28 THE DUBLIN II TRAP TRANSFERS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS TO GREECE Board had decision-making powers, it was not an independent body but functioned under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior and Public Order. In addition, according to Article 29 of PD 90/2008, an applicant who received a negative decision on appeal had the right to apply for annulment of that decision before the Council of State. However, this is an expensive and time-consuming judicial proceeding. Only asylum-seekers who received free legal assistance, or the few who could afford to pay high fees to lawyers, could resort to the Council of State (see above under Limited access to legal assistance). Furthermore, the application for annulment did not automatically suspend the deportation proceedings against an asylum-seeker whose application had been rejected in the second instance. Legal representatives had to apply to the Council of State for suspension of the deportation procedure and a temporary order to stop his or her deportation. According to Article 13 of the ECHR, in cases where an appellant claims that his or her life or integrity would be at risk in their own country, a judicial procedure which does not suspend the deportation decision cannot be considered as effective.99 In the case of Jabari v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that “…given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the risk of torture or ill-treatment alleged materialised and the importance which attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 and the possibility of suspending the implementation of the measure impugned.”100 PD 81/2009 abolishes the second stage appeal procedure and the Appeals Board described in the paragraph above, leaving asylum-seekers with no recourse to an effective appeal.101 Now the only remaining means of seeking redress against the rejection decision is to apply to the Council of State for it to be annulled. The review by the Council of State can only examine procedural aspects of the negative decision. This clearly contradicts the recent proposal of the European Commission to amend the Asylum Procedures Directive, in order to specify that the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal requires a “full examination of both facts and points of law”.102 An application for annulment before the Council of State still does not result in suspension of the deportation procedure initiated against a failed asylum-seeker. However, the failed asylum-seeker has the right to request suspension of the deportation order (Article 52, PD 18/1989). It may take between 18 months and more than two years for the annulment application to be considered after it has been lodged, which is why the asylum-seeker also needs to file an application to suspend the deportation order. Moreover, since the decision on the suspension application could be issued six to 18 months later, an application to issue a provisional order to prohibit the deportation should also be filed. Both of these applications need to be filed by a lawyer. Delays in delivering provisional orders to stop deportations (issued between 10 days and four months after application) place many asylum-seekers at risk of arrest, detention and expulsion, including refoulement, since pending the issuing of such orders, their documentation (pink card) is not valid. PD 81/2009 also stipulated that pending appeals would be decided upon by the Deputy Minister of Interior, assisted by Advisory Appeals Committees, which have been downgraded Amnesty International March 2010 Index: EUR 25/001/2010