prevailing in the new centres are considerably better than the ones in the RICs in terms of infrastructure. Yet, testimonies collected by the Greek Council for Refugees from people living in the new centres and civil society organisations reveal prison-like conditions. In 2021, approximately 100 people were prevented from leaving a reception centre for two months due to an exit ban which the Greek administrative court subsequently found to have amounted to an illegal de facto detention. 118 The Ministry of Asylum and Migration takes great pride in the 24/7 surveillance and security control mechanisms of the new centres, while at the same time, the residents face practices of illegal de facto detention and arbitrary restrictions of personal liberty and freedom of movement and have limited access to healthcare. In fact, the Medical Unit of the facilities in Samos 119 and Kos does not include any doctors, despite the extremely poor public primary health services on the islands. 120 In Lesvos, before the registration of their application, asylum seekers are detained in a sector called the ”Waiting area” (the previous quarantine area), and for approximately 5 days, where NGOs are not allowed to enter nor applicants to exit. Hotspot transformation following the EU-Türkiye statement In March 2016, the adoption of the highly controversial EU-Türkiye Statement committing ‘to end the irregular migration from Türkiye to the EU’121 brought a transformation of the so-called hotspots on the Aegean islands.122 With the launch of the EU-Türkiye Statement, hotspot facilities turned into closed detention centres. People arriving after 20 March 2016 through the Aegean islands, and thus subject to the EU-Türkiye Statement, were automatically de facto detained within the premises of the hotspots in order to be readmitted to Türkiye in case they did not seek international protection or their applications were rejected, either as inadmissible under the Safe Third Country or First Country of Asylum concepts, or on the merits.123 Following criticism by national and international organisations and actors, and due to the limited capacity to maintain and run closed facilities on the islands with a high number of people, the practice of blanket detention was largely abandoned from the end of 2016 onwards. It has been replaced by a practice of systematic geographical restriction, i.e. an obligation not to leave the island and reside at the hotspot facility, which is imposed indiscriminately to every newly arrived person (see Freedom of Movement). 118 119 120 121 122 123 Administrative Court of Syros, Decision No ΑΡ 36 /17-12-2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3KroeOI. GCR & Oxfam Bulletin, March 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3NPHNCh; OXFAM and GCR, Lesbos Bulletin Update on Lesbos and the Aegean Islands, by the Greek Council for Refugees & Oxfam, 6 March 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3ujUNIZ. ‘In both Samos and Kos, only one ambulance is available for the islands’ entire population of more than 32,000 and 37,000 people respectively’ Greek Council for Refugees & Oxfam International Submission Inquiry on Fundamental Rights in the EU-funded Migration Facilities on the Greek Islands Case OI/3/2022/MHZ , p.13. Kos’ General Hospital ‘HIPPOCRATES’ systematically lacks a GP (pathologist) and a pediatrician European Council, EU-Türkiye statement, 18 March 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/1VjZvOD. The Greens / European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, The EU-Türkiye Statement and the Greek Hotspots, a failed European pilot project in refugee policy, June 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/38TAhkb. In this respect, it should be mentioned that on 28 February 2017, the European Union General Court gave an order, ruling that ‘the EU-Türkiye Statement, as published by means of Press Release No 144/16, cannot be regarded as a measure adopted by the European Council, or, moreover, by any other institution, body, office or agency of the European Union, or as revealing the existence of such a measure that corresponds to the contested measure.’ Therefore ‘the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of an international agreement concluded by the Member States’.123 The order became final on 12 September 2018, as an appeal lodged before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was rejected. General Court of the European Union, Cases T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16 NF, NG and NM v. European Council, Order of 28 February 2017, press release available at: http://bit.ly/2lWZPrr; CJEU, Cases C-208/17 P, C-209/17 P and 210/17 P NF, NG and NM v European Council, Order of 12 September 2018. 41