In practice, NGOs’ capacity to access detainees is limited due to constraints in human and financial resources. Family members’ access is restricted due to limited visiting hours and the remote location of some detention facilities. Another major practical barrier to asylum applicants’ communication with NGOs is that they do not have access to free phone calls. Therefore, access to NGOs, amongst others, is limited if they do not have the financial means to buy a telephone card. While some detention centres (Amygdaleza, Corinth, Xanthi, Paranesti, Kos) have adopted the good practice of allowing people to use their mobile phones, others, such as Tavros and all police stations, prohibit the use of mobile phones. D. Procedural safeguards 1. Judicial review of the detention order Indicators: Judicial Review of Detention 1. Is there an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention? 2. If yes, at what interval is the detention order reviewed? 1.1. Yes No Not specified Automatic judicial review The Asylum Code provides for an ex officio judicial control of the detention decision of asylum applicants. The procedure is largely based on the procedure already in place for the automatic judicial review of the decisions extending the detention of third-country nationals in view of return under L 3907/2011.1238 Article 50(5) Asylum Code reads as follows: ‘In case of prolongation of detention, the order for the prolongation of detention shall be transmitted to the President of the Administrative Court of First Instance, or the judge appointed thereby, who is territorially competent for the applicant’s place of detention and who decides on the legality of the detention measure and issues immediately his decision, in a brief record.’ Statistics on the outcome of ex officio judicial scrutiny confirm that the procedure is highly problematic and illustrates the rudimentary and ineffective way in which this judicial review takes place. During 2025, out of the total 3,028 decisions of the administrative courts issued within the framework of the ex officio judicial review, only 0.8% (30 decisions) rejected the prolongation of detention. 1239 1.2. Objections against detention Apart from the automatic judicial review procedure, asylum applicants may challenge detention through “objections against detention” before the Administrative Court, 1240 which is the only legal remedy provided by national legislation to this end. Objections against detention are not examined by a court composition but solely by the President of the Administrative Court, whose decision is non-appealable. In practice, the ability for detained persons to challenge their detention is severely restricted due to ongoing ‘gaps in the provision of interpretation and legal aid, resulting in the lack of access to judicial remedies against the detention decisions’. 1238 1239 1240 Article 30(3) L 3907/2011. Per a March 2026 reply of the Ministry of Justice to a parliamentary question. See RSA, Deportation and immigration detention statistics in Greece in 2025, 31 March 2026, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3meetrzh, p.7. Article 50(6) Asylum Code, citing Article 76(3)-(4) L 3386/2005. 248