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. Ex officio judicial review ineffective and restricted 16. Following the entry into force of the IPA, the procedure of ex officio judicial review of asylum detention orders by the President of the Administrative Court is only made available in case of prolongation of detention.33 The review was carried out upon issuance of the initial asylum detention order under the previous legal framework,34 17. More generally, the ex officio judicial review of detention orders has proven to be an ineffective safeguard against arbitrary detention in practice. The overwhelming majority of ex officio decisions by Administrative Courts have rubberstamped detention orders in the context of both asylum and pre-removal detention. Decisionmaking at the Administrative Court of Athens, the court dealing with the majority of detention review cases, is particularly instructive: only 4 out of 1,192 asylum detention orders reviewed in 2018 and 3 out of 599 asylum detention orders reviewed in 2019 were quashed. None of the 167 pre-removal detention orders reviewed in 2018 and 84 pre-removal orders reviewed in 2019 were quashed.35 Inaccessibility of “objections” remedy and legal aid 18. Serious gaps in the accessibility and effectiveness of the “objections against detention” (αντιρρήσεις κατά κράτησης) remedy available to detained persons before the Administrative Court.36 Individuals are not informed of the reasons for their deportation and detention in a language they understand so as to be able to access the objections procedure. The detention order issued by the police authorities is only written in Greek and interpretation of the decision together with information on the right to challenge such decision is often not provided to detained asylum seekers upon its notification. 19. Furthermore, albeit provided in national legislation,37 legal aid to challenge a detention order is not guaranteed in practice, as access to legal aid is not ensured and in the absence of arrangements to refer individuals to legal representatives. This results in detained asylum seekers in need of legal assistance not being able to challenge their detention in practice.38 Legal assistance is offered to a small number of detainees by civil society organisations operating in the country, which currently face an increasingly hostile environment affecting their work.39 Ineffectiveness of “objections” remedy vis-à-vis detention ordered in contravention of the law 20. The failure of Administrative Courts to overturn detention orders taken in express contravention of Greek legislation on return and asylum is a particular indicator of ineffectiveness of judicial review. Judicial decisions in cases represented by RSA have upheld detention orders which exceeded the exhaustive detention grounds under domestic law, in particular in the cases of persons arbitrarily detained with a view to 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Article 46(5)(b) IPA. Article 46(5) L 4375/2016. Asylum Information Database, Country Report Greece, 2018 Update, March 2019, 171; 2019 Update, June 2020, 201. For a recent commentary, see Vasileios Papadopoulos, ‘Αντιρρήσεις κατά κράτησης αλλοδαπού’ (2020) 32 Διοικητική Δίκη 337-345. Article 46(7) IPA. This is contrary to Article 13(4) of the Return Directive and raises questions of compliance with Articles 3 and 13 ECHR. Expert Council on NGO Law, Opinion on the compatibility with European standards of recent and planned amendments to the Greek legislation on NGO registration, CONF/EXP(2020)4, 2 July 2020, https://bit.ly/332YlBV; RSA, Risk of repression: New rules on civil society supporting refugees and migrants in Greece, May 2020, https://bit.ly/2EovGgu; RSA, Repression continued: Greece further restricts civil society supporing refugees and migrants, September 2020, https://bit.ly/3lteWVn. RSA COMMENTS │ 2020 5