Where the deadline for lodging the Appeal begins on the next day of the fictitious service, with the exception of the cases where the service of the decision is taking place with electronic means, the deadline begins 48 hours after the dispatch of the electronic message. 254 According to Art. 83(2) IPA, together with the decision, a document in the language that the applicant understands or in a language that they may reasonably be supposed to understand is also communicated to the Applicant, where the content of the document is explained in simple language, together with the consequences of the decision and action he/she may pursuit. Alternatively, a link to the webpage of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum where relevant information is provided is provided in the said document. In cases where the Applicant remains in a Reception and Identification Centre or remains detained in a detention facility, the Decision is sent to the Head of the RIC or the Detention facility, who announces the receipt of the Decision and the time schedule so that the Applicant is able to present himself/herself to receive the decision. The deadline for lodging an Appeal begins 3 days after the communication of the Decision to the Head of the RIC or the Detention Facility. 255 No force majeure reasons should be invoked in order for a decision to be serviced with one of the ways described above. In the event the Applicant cannot be found/contacted with one of the means/ways described above and no lawyer has been appointed, the Decision is served to the Head of the RAO/AAU of the Asylum Service or the head of the RIC or the detention facility, and following this service of the Decision, it is considered that the applicant had knowledge of the Decision.256 In practice, for applicants on the mainland, it is mainly the communication of first instance decisions by a registered letter or via e-mail which has been used by the end of the year. In cases of electronic communication of first instance decisions, provision for legal aid for the appeals procedure can be requested either in person at the competent RAO or by the electronic application of the Ministry for Migration and Asylum.257 In cases where the latter is the only option as the applicant lives far from the competent RAO, it significantly hinders access for those not familiar with the use of electronic applications or who do not have access to the required equipment/internet. Moreover, in practice, the notification of first instance decisions is also carried out by the Head of the RICs on the islands and Evros and the Head of Pre-removal detention facilities in Athens (Amigdaleza and Tavros). In both cases, the inability of the applicants to understand the content of the communicated documents and the procedure they have to follow has been observed. It has also been observed that in state accommodation facilities in Northern and Central Greece (where the asylum seekers address is evidently known to the State), as well as facilities on Northern Aegean islands, the Asylum Service has resorted to the ‘fictitious service’ of decisions, without trying to locate the applicants at their registered address, nor, in cases where the applicant is represented by a lawyer, reaching out to their lawyer. Τhe current practice of ‘fictitious service’ of decisions has resulted in the expiration of deadlines for submitting an appeal, thereby effectively depriving asylum seekers of their right to an effective remedy. 254 255 256 257 Article 82(3) IPA, as amended by L. 4686/2020 and 87(3) ASYLUM CODE Article 82(4) IPA, as amended by L. 4686/2020. and 87(4) ASYLUM CODE Article 82(5) IPA, as amended by L. 4686/2020 and 87(5) ASYLUM CODE See: https://bit.ly/3BPGrCV. 61