Coping with a fundamental rights emergency – The situation of people crossing the Greek border in an irregular manner During this time these persons are held on the basis of Article 76 (3) of Law 3386/2005. This provision allows for temporary detention up to three days if, on the basis of the general circumstances, there is a risk of absconding or if the person constitutes a danger for public order or if he/she avoids or obstructs the procedure for expulsion or return. After the three days deadline, detention can be extended, if a decision of deportation is issued. These provisions have not changed with the recent Law 3907/2011. Hence, the Hellenic police has a certain degree of discretion in deciding whether to detain a person crossing the border irregularly. In practice, however, except for cases requiring immediate hospitalisation, everyone is detained temporarily for the initial period required for identification and processing in one of the detention centres, including persons belonging to vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, babies and unaccompanied minors. The processing of irregular migrants is primarily carried out by the Hellenic police, except for the nationality screening which is done jointly by FRONTEX and Hellenic police teams. The screening by the joint teams is the only extensive interview carried out with an irregular migrant at the border, unless he/she is interviewed by FRONTEX to obtain information about patterns of organised crime (debriefing interview). In the absence of an interview focusing on reasons of flight it is primarily during the screening or debriefing interviews with FRONTEX that a migrant may raise international protection considerations as well as any other specific needs. If such considerations and needs are mentioned, the FRA was informed that FRONTEX officers would report this to the Hellenic police for follow up. However, the FRA noted that the limited human resources, the absence of interpreters within the Hellenic police and its extremely heavy workload, constitute serious obstacles to undertake individual follow up measures. While the FRA was informed that they could and do exceptionally ask FRONTEX to use their interpreters, this is clearly not a sustainable solution. The lack of interpreters and, more importantly, the absence of specialised NGOs providing independent social and legal counselling frustrate the limited efforts made to provide information to the migrants about their legal status, the reasons for detention and the possibility to request asylum. When speaking to the migrants held in the facilities, the FRA was confronted with a generalised lack of understanding about why they were detained and for how long they would remain there. This resulted in heightened stress and could contribute to the frequent violent acts within the facilities that were reported to FRA. Such lack of information, combined with the absence of independent legal advice also explains why individuals follow alleged instructions obtained by smugglers not to apply for asylum at the border. In addition, most interlocutors stressed that those who seek asylum are likely to remain in the border detention facilities for a much longer period of time, as the police waits for a decision by the refugee commission before ordering their release. In one case, the additional burden that asylum seekers create on the police was also stressed, as they need to be escorted to the police directorate for asylum interviews, which takes away resources from other tasks. These reasons taken together explain why the number of asylum seekers at the border remains low, in spite of a considerable number of persons coming from refugee‐producing countries, 22