FORGOTTEN Administratively detained irregular migrants and asylum seekers According to the Return Handbook: “The request to receive a translation may be formulated by the returnee or his/her legal representative. The Member State is at liberty to choose whether a written or oral translation is provided warranting of course that the third-country national can understand the context and content. It is not possible to require a fee for providing a translation since this would undermine the spirit of the provision, which is to provide the returnee with the necessary information to allow him/her to fully understand his/her legal situation. It is up to national implementing legislation and administrative practice to decide what language the third-country national is reasonably presumed to understand. This assessment may be done in the same way and according to the same criteria as in asylum procedures, taking into account that due to the complexity of asylum procedures the requirements for translation in this area may be higher (an analogous provision referring to the notion of a language the applicant is “reasonably supposed to understand” can be found in Article 12 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU, Article 22 of the recast Qualification Directive 2011/95/EU and Article 5 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU). This provision requires Member States to make all reasonable efforts to provide for a translation into a language the person concerned actually understands and the non-availability of interpreters may only be a valid excuse in cases of extremely rare languages for which there is an objective lack of interpreters. In the case where translators into the relevant language exist but are not available for reasons internal to the administration, the lack of translation cannot be justified.”37 Moreover, article 28 of Law 3907/2011 sites that “the competent aliens authorities are obliged to provide information and all possible assistance to a third country national seeking legal advice, representation by a lawyer, and linguistic assistance in order to exercise the rights contained in this article”. According to the Return Handbook: “Linguistic assistance implies not only an obligation to provide for a translation of a decision (this is already covered by Article 12(2)) but also an obligation to make available assistance by interpreters in order to allow the third-country national to exercise the procedural rights afforded to him/her under Article 13. In this context, it should be recalled that in the case of Conka vs. Belgium (Judgment of 5 37 Return Handbook, page 69 62