8. Lack of legal safeguards 53 was rejected by the Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis. In these cases the court decided that Greece lacks an effective remedy, as required by Article 5 par. 4 of the Convention. request is still pending. The court rejected their objections with the following justification: »They have not created permanent living conditions which would ease their being located by the authorities upon release.«170 8.6.1 Case law of Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis – ineffective judicial review In other similar cases of asylum seekers, whose application for reception conditions was still pending, the court argued that: »It cannot be established in the present case that legal remain would prevent him from resorting to illegal means of survival or the risk of absconding«.171 Even if detainees have access to a lawyer, the legal remedy of lodging an objection / appeal is dismissed in the vast majority of cases by the Administrative Court. Taking into account the case law of the Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis, the missions’ team comes to the conclusion that the court does not take into consideration the bad conditions of the detention centres, the lack of safeguards in detention and in the asylum procedure. It does not examine thoroughly the purpose and the necessity of the detention of each case individually, or the possibility of other alternative non-custodial measures. In the vast majority of cases the court examines only whether the complainant is a likely absconder and if he (or she) has residency or work in Greece. The asylum seekers who want to challenge their detention should prove before the court that they have residency work and other means to support themselves. This counts even for those who lack sufficient resources and are entitled to be granted reception conditions by the state (PD 220/2007, Reception Directive). Otherwise their application is dismissed on the grounds that there is a risk of absconding. According to the case law the court takes neither the particularities and the legal status of the asylum-seeker into account, nor the obligation of the state to provide asylum seekers in need with housing and other reception conditions. Even in cases where asylum seekers appealed before the competent authorities in written form for housing (reception conditions), the court dismissed the cases while their request was still pending. I.A. and M.S., two women from Rwanda detained in Feres border guard station, had applied for asylum. The missions’ lawyers met them on April 12, 2011. They have requested reception conditions and housing upon their release. Their 170 Case 154/10-6-2011 Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis 171 Case 140/13-5-2011 and also cases: 134/6-5-2011, 55/21.1. 2011, 192/2010, 55/2011 Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis 172 Cases: 199/2010 and 198/2010 Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis Even where the asylum seekers had the possibility to be temporarily housed in a hotel until their transfer to a reception centre, the court rejected the objections on the grounds that the address was a temporary one and that there were no free places in reception centres.172 In addition, bearing in mind the case law of the court, we come to the conclusion that in the majority of cases of asylum seekers the court does not assess each case individually as regards the purpose of the detention. Instead, its decision to continue the detention is based on general grounds, such as: »the prompt and effective asylum procedure«, or »for the reason of the control of irregular migration, which constitutes a danger for public order.«173 Asylum seekers whose deportation was suspended, and where the completion of their asylum procedure was not feasible even within the maximum period of six months’ detention, challenged their detention, but the court dismissed the cases on general grounds. It is clear that in the majority of case law, the court does not take into account the notorious detention conditions and the lack of safeguards in the Evros area, as well as the inadequacies of the asylum procedure in detention. Claims regarding the degrading detention conditions are considered either inadmissible or are dismissed as unfounded174. In many cases the court argues that the detention conditions in Fylakio satisfy the international standards and that the detainees in other detention centres in Evros can request their transfer to Fylakio detention centre.175 The court does not examine the legality of the detention for each case regularly – three months as prescribed by law176 – as a matter of course. 173 Cases: 135/2.5.2011, 154/2011. See also: 56/21.2011, 118/2011, 82/2010 Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis 174 Cases:110/24.3.2011, 119/2010, 198/2010, 192/2010 1 Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis 175 Cases: 55/2011, 56/2011, 134/2011, 140/2011 Administrative Court of Alexandroupolis 176 According to Article 30, par 3, law 3907/2011