52 border guards. With the help of a lawyer, the boy put in another application, again specifying his real age and requesting to be treated as a minor. The police officers were unwilling to assign a protocol number to the certificate and the application asking, for a correction of his age. The next morning, the minor, together with a group of irregular migrants, was transferred to the Turkish border in order to be sent back. Eventually, the readmission was not completed thanks to repeated interventions. 8.5. Lack of safeguards against deportation There is no effective legal remedy against deportation. According to article 77 of Law 3386/2005, a detainee has the right to appeal within five days from the notification of the deportation decision, before the Citizen Protection Minister (or another authorized institution). This appeal should be drafted only in written form and in Greek language. The vast majority of migrants is unable to seize this opportunity because of the lack of information in a language he/she understands, the lack of writing material, the lack of interpreters, the lack of legal aid and the restricted access to lawyers. In addition, the examination procedure for the appeal is not prompt and ineffective, as it is not accomplished by an independent body. The detainee has the right to lodge an annulment application before the competent administrative court against the negative decision issued by the Minister of the Protection of Citizen. The application for annulment is only then considered admissible, if the applicant has filed firstly the administrative appeal before the Citizen Protection Minister and it was rejected. The application for annulment allows judicial review only on specific points of law and does not allow for the review of the merits of the case. In addition, lodging an annulment application does not have a suspensive effect regarding the deportation. The lawyer should lodge another application for suspension before the court. Both papers, that of annulment and of suspension, should be written with due diligence by a lawyer, and they require particular administrative knowledge, as it is a complex procedure. 167 Case of an asylum seeker who was detained in the border guard station of Soufli. 8. Lack of legal safeguards Due to the detention conditions and the lack of an effective free legal aid scheme (see chapter 8.4.2.), the legal remedies against deportation are not accessible to detainees. Even if the legal aid is accessible and the admissibility criteria (administrative appeal) are met, the provided legal remedy is not an effective one, as it does not have an automatic suspensive effect and does not review the case on the merits. In the case of R.U. v Greece167, the European Human Rights Court pointed out that neither an application for a stay of execution, nor a request for an interim order were of automatic suspensive effect. R.U., therefore, did not have an effective remedy, neither in the deportation nor in the asylum proceedings. 8.6. Lack of effective legal remedies against detention The only legal remedy against detention provided by the law is »objections« (appeal) against the detention decision. The objections can be lodged in written or oral form in Greek language before the competent administrative court in Alexandroupoli168. Even though the law grants detainees the right to lodge by themselves objections before the court, it is practically impossible. A lawyer is necessary in order to write the application, lodge it or represent the detainee in court. Court costs have to be paid. Since there is no free legal aid, access to the court for detainees is merely theoretical, inaccessible and ineffective (see also AA v Greece).169 In cases where detainees do have access to lawyers, the scope of the judicial review of the detention is insufficiently broad to meet the requirements set out by article 5 par. 4 of the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights in the cases SD v. Greece (53541/2007, 11.6.2009), Tabesh v. Greece (8256/2007, 26.11.2009), AA v. Greece (12186/2008, 22.7.2010), RU v. Greece (2237/2008, 7.6.2011), Rahimi v. Greece (8687/2008,4.7.2011), noted »the inadequacies of Greek law« regarding the effectiveness of judicial review of the detention with a view to expulsion, and had concluded that they failed to meet the requirements of Article 5 § 4. In the case of S.D. v Greece and R.U. v Greece, Greece was convicted for the violation of article 5 par. 4 ECHR. Both are cases of asylum seekers, whose objection against detention 168 For detainees of the detention centres in Evros prefecture – namely: Feres, Tychero, Soufli and Fylakio. 169 See: footnote 109: art 29 L3907/2011, art 55 L3900/2010