FORGOTTEN Administratively detained irregular migrants and asylum seekers From the investigation of files at the Regional Asylum Offices, we have established that the Asylum Service in its recommendations for the continuation of detention states the following: «If it is judged that alternative measures may not apply, as the ones mentioned in article 22 par. 3 of Law 3907/2011, we recommend the continuation of detention of the above-mentioned person for the determination of the actual data of his identity or origin, according to art. 12 of P.D. 113/2013 on the condition that the 18 month maximum time-limit of detention has not been exceeded52 taking into account the possible lack of appropriate spaces and difficulties in ensuring decent living conditions of the detainee, according to article 13 par. 6 of P.D.113/201353».54 However, in our opinion, with the practice of following the aforementioned standard wording, the Asylum Service does not make full use of the important role assigned to it by the legislator regarding the asylum applicants’ treatment. Therefore, the police authorities continue to impose the measure of the detention, judging exclusively whether alternative to detention measures may apply and taking into account the possible lack of appropriate spaces and difficulties in ensuring decent living conditions. This practice renders largely unenforceable the reform introduced by P.D. 113/2013 and remained into force by Law 4375/2016, according to which the Hellenic Police, in most cases, can only issue a detention decision of an applicant upon relevant recommendation by the Asylum Service. Furthermore, the investigation of the files of detainees revealed the following: • In some cases, after the registration of the asylum application, the Asylum Service informs the police authorities that it will not recommend the continuation of detention. This is usually the case for asylum-seekers from Syria, Somalia, and Eritrea, Palestine and Iraq. • The Asylum Service followed the practice of withdrawal of recommendations for detention, after the lodging of appeal against a first instance rejection, given that the Appeals Committees had not been operating from September 2015 until recently. 52 Currently the recommendation mentions: “according to article 46 par. 2 (a) law 4375/2016, for the period of time prescribed by article 46 par 4 (b) 53 Currently the recommendation mentions: “according to article 46 par. 7 law 4375/2016” 54 Underlining added 80