Ombudsman, with her decision dated 18.1.2017,258 noted the need for a human rights impact assessment by the European Commission, which is responsible for the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, despite its political nature. However, the General Court of the EU, with its decision dated 28.2.2017,259 found that regardless whether the Statement is a political text with binding legal consequences, it cannot be attributed to the European Council or other EU body, but to the Heads of the Member States (par. 66-69 of the decision), and even if it were an informal agreement of the heads of state with a third country, it could not be admissibly challenged before the Court (par. 72-73 of the decision). It is worth noting that this decision of the General Court is contrary to the wording of the text of the Statement260 and various other texts of reports, etc. (op. cit.) of the European Commission that refer to the EUTurkey Statement”. The decision of the General Court, which recognises the existence of an extra-institutional activity of the EU regarding the refugee/migration issue, which is in fact exempted from the EU Courts judicial review, constitutes a clear indication of the fact that the refugee issue has shaken the foundations of the EU structure itself. 3. Insouciance about human rights Even though the legislative initiatives for addressing the refugee crisis taken by Greece are not limited, their scope however is dominated by insouciance about human rights, which means lack of due respect towards human rights upon implementing the legislative framework. The example of the systematic imposition of detention, in contrast to its limited purpose by declaration as a measure necessary for the sole purpose of removal of the third-country 258 https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/75160/ html.bookmark 259 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc3 0d5b5ed7ddf0e624e32b8f2ec4445772ef3.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyKchn 0?text=&docid=188483&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=fir st&part=1&cid=503363 260 “Today the Members of the European Council met with their Turkish counterpart....the EU and Turkey today decided to end the irregular migration from Turkey to the EU” http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/pressreleases/2016/03/18-eu-turkey-statement/, see the arguments of the European Council: “56. However, in its reply of 18 November 2016, the European Council explained that the expression ‘Members of the European Council’ contained in the EU-Turkey statement must be understood as a reference to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union, since they make up the European Council. Furthermore, the reference in that statement to the fact that ‘the EU and [the Republic of] Turkey’ had agreed on certain additional action points is explained by the emphasis on simplification of the words used for the general public in the context of a press release. 58. According to that institution, the term ‘EU’ must be understood in this journalistic context as referring to the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union”. nationals, supports the above assumption. It is obvious however, that the legislative narrative is not sufficient for the substantial exercise of the rights, but they need to be incorporated into the daily administrative practice. The lack of such incorporation, which cancels any legislative initiative, is highlighted mainly in the subjects of detention, living conditions and the treatment of vulnerable groups, especially of minors. Specifically: As regards detention, there is none more cynical admission of the disregard of fundamental rights than the belief that the “construction of detention facilities will serve as a deterrent to the creation of new migrant flows”.261 Thus, the deprivation of personal liberty is no longer an exceptional and necessary measure to achieve the purpose of forced removal, as imposed by domestic law and the Return Directive, but a policy instrument. The policy of the extended administrative detention had however demonstrated its limits back in 2014, when the Greek Ombudsman had noted262 that administrative detention contributes towards the problem and not the solution, considering the large number of detainees held for several months, in combination with the insecurity of the third-country nationals regarding their future. The Hellenic Police does not have the facilities and the know-how to ensure adequate guarantees for the deprivation of personal liberty in mass spaces, despite its continuous efforts for improvement of the conditions at the Pre-removal Centers. The Greek Ombudsman repeats its basic recommendation, to limit detention in view of forced removal to the absolute necessary extent as an extreme restriction of personal liberty, at the same time ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of the detainees. Specifically, with regard to the detention of unaccompanied minors, after the adoption of Law 4375/2016, we witness the phenomenon of protective custody, that allows detention to continue even after the liberty restriction time of Articles 14 and 46(10) is exhausted, with application of the provisions on detention of Law 3386/2005, each time a suitable accommodation facility cannot be found. Even though detention with the purpose of protecting unac261 According to the decision for tendering the project for the construction of the Pre-removal Center in Kos, AVGI 11.2.2017 http://www.avgi.gr/ article/10836/7893526/to-proto-kentro-krateses-sta-nesia-tha-einai-sten-ko 262 See http://www.synigoros.gr/?i=human-rights.el.maziki-kratisiallodapon.118221 89