DH-DD(2020)929: Rules 9.2 and 9.6 Communication from an NGO in S.D. v. Greece and reply from the authorities. Document distributed under the sole responsibility of its author, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. 12. In addition, detention for the purpose of deportation was automatically imposed by police authorities without consideration of the realistic prospect of removal, in spite of clear obstacles to deporting individuals to Turkey. Severe constraints have been posed on Greece’s ability to carry out deportations to Turkey in 2020, namely due to the suspension by Turkey of readmission procedures under the EU-Turkey Statement for an indefinite period of time, in conjunction with the ongoing suspension of the Greece-Turkey Bilateral Readmission Agreement and the ongoing non-application of the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement with regard to non-nationals.25 The suspension of readmissions under the EU-Turkey Statement was communicated on 5 March 2020,26 and remains in force at the time of writing, with the Turkish authorities not replying to requests submitted by their Greek counterparts in the course of the summer.27 13. Detention and deportation orders issued during the period of the emergency decree by the Lesvos Police Directorate in cases represented by RSA were in clear dereliction of S.D. and related judgments, given that they made no reference to the IPA, to the fact that the intention to lodge an asylum claim had been expressed, and were notified to the persons concerned in Greek with no interpreter present. 28 Administrative remedies against expulsion decisions in such cases were ineffective, given that the second-instance decision-making authority, the Northern Aegean Regional Police Directorate, rejected all appeals in identical decisions without conducting individualised assessments or examining risks of refoulement.29 Ineffective judicial review of detention orders 14. In relation to compliance of the Greek State with Article 5(4) of the Convention, serious concerns persist as to the effectiveness of ex officio review and of the remedy of appeal (“objections”) against detention (αντιρρήσεις κατά κράτησης).30 Pursuant to the Committee’s request to the Greek authorities to provide information on domestic case law on the lawfulness of asylum and pre-removal detention,31 RSA & Stiftung PRO ASYL wish to draw the attention of the Committee to obstacles arising from current practice and up-to-date case law of the Administrative Courts (Διοικητικά Πρωτοδικεία). 15. RSA & Stiftung PRO ASYL recall that the set-up of objections against detention as a single-instance remedy before the President of the Administrative Court, without the possibility of onward legal challenge, continues to lead to a lack of thorough examination of the legality of detention across the country as regards the interpretation of the right to liberty in the asylum and migration context. It also means that higher courts cannot correct lower-court judgments and issue guidance through leading jurisprudence.32 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 European Commission, Turkey Report 2020, SWD(2020) 355, 6 October 2020, 48-49, https://bit.ly/2SF6pCq. Information provided by the Directorate of Migration Management, Hellenic Police, 30 March 2020, cited in RSA, Rights denied during Greek asylum procedure suspension, April 2020, 4, https://bit.ly/37bDRa8; European Parliament, The situation at the Greek/Turkish border and respect for fundamental rights, 6 July 2020, https://bit.ly/371jZsv. European Commission, Turkey Report 2020, SWD(2020) 355, 6 October 2020, 48. RSA, Rights denied during Greek asylum procedure suspension, April 2020, 4. Ibid, 6. Article 76(3) L 3386/2005, as amended; Article 30(2) L 3907/2011; Article 46(6) IPA. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, 1265th meeting (20-21 September 2016) – Decisions, point 4. See also Asylum Information Database, Country Report Greece, 2019 Update, June 2020, 202. RSA COMMENTS │ 2020 4