(E) The legal status of persons who have requested an appointment via the online platform The request to schedule an appointment at Malakasa and Diavata through the online platform is equivalent to “making” an asylum application under EU and Greek legislation in force (Art. 6, 2013/32/EU; Art. 1(c), 69(8), 4939/2022). This assessment has been reinforced by at least eight rulings of Greek administrative courts in 2023³⁰ and assessments by the European Commission.³¹ However, the Greek authorities maintain that persons who have applied for an appointment via the platform do not qualify as applicants of international protection and this status is only acquired upon their registration within a RIC. The appointment receipt received following the successful booking of an appointment at a mainland RIC explicitly states that the receipt does not amount to proof of asylum seeker status. In practice, therefore, people with an appointment booked do not access material reception conditions or documentation attesting to their legal right to remain on Greek territory, despite having made a clear expression of intention to apply for international protection, amounting to “making” of an application under Greek and EU law. The Greek government maintains that registering on the platform does not meet the requirements of simple registration under Greek law. The reasons cited for this in private meetings with the European Commission³² include the fact that there is no collection or verification of data involved in the appointment booking process, and hence no documentation can be issued to the applicant. However, in this case the authorities have a legal obligation to pre-register a person who has requested an appointment within three working days and to provide documentation attesting to their status as an asylum seeker (Art. 6(1), 2013/32/EU). The issue of access to the asylum procedure and the status of persons who have booked an appointment via the online platform have been the subject of interventions by the Greek Ombudsman³³ and CSOs.³⁴ It is additionally a major issue in the supervision of the implementation of the ECtHR judgement in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011) by the CoE.³⁵ GCR has reported cases of Afghan nationals who were arbitrarily arrested and detained, preventing them from going to Malakasa RIC to submit their application for international protection. In these cases the applicants’ detention orders were removed by Greek courts.³⁶ (F) Legal assessments of de facto detention within RICs The practice of restriction of movement of people undergoing reception and identification procedures within RICs and CCACs is the subject of ongoing infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission in January 2023.³⁷ The Commission has assessed that the restriction of movement decision amounts to de facto detention, as it entails substantial interference with the liberty of persons, who are required to remain within the RIC or CCAC and are not permitted to receive visitors from outside. 16