GREECE IRREGULAR MIGRANTS AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS ROUTINELY DETAINED IN SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS 55 deterioration of the detainee’s health (Symeonides, Administrative Deportation, op.cit., p.364; Article 76(5) of Law 3386/2005). 69 Article 1(2) of the Joint Ministerial Decision No. 4000/4/46 by the Ministers of Interior, Finance and Justice determining the details for the implementation of judicial and administrative decisions of deportation against foreign nationals. 70 Article 77 of Law 3386/2005 provides that the appeal should be lodged within five days of of the deportation order being served. Once an appeal has been lodged, this suspends the enforcement of the deportation decision but not the decision to detain, if one has been issued. 71 S.D. v. Greece, op.cit., para. 74; Tabesh v. Greece, op.cit., para 62; 72 Law 3386/2005 does not explicitly stipulate that the administrative courts can examine the lawfulness of the decision to detain an irregular migrant or an asylum-seeker pending deportation. (See Symeonides, I., Administrative Deportation, Sakkoulas Publications Athens, p.361). In practice, the courts tend to examine only whether the individual detained in view of deportation is at risk of absconding or dangerous to public order. 73 S.D. v Greece, op.cit., paras 70-77; see also the case of Tabesh v Greece, where the ECtHR found a violation of Article 5 (4) ECHR. The ECtHR took into account the shortcomings in domestic law regarding the effectiveness of the judicial review of detention pending deportation. Among the shortcomings identified was that domestic law does not allow for the direct review of the lawfulness of a foreign national’s detention pending deportation and the lack of the competent tribunal’s reply to the applicant’s argument that his deportation could not be effected because his country of origin did not confirm to the Greek state that he was a national (op.cit., paras 62 - 63). 74 Phone interview with Efi Teli, lawyer, 7 February 2010; see also case of Tabesh v. Greece, paras 1113 and paras 61-63. 75 Interview with Marianna Tzeferakou, 12 April 2010; interview with Efthalia Pappa, ECRP, 12 April 2010. 76 See Tabesh v Greece, op.cit., para 29. 77 In practice, the cost of a private lawyer to write and file objections against detention starts from 200 Euros to 500 Euros or more. 78 See also The Dublin II Trap, pp 21-23 and 25-27. 79 See Principle 14. 80 See also Article 16(2) of the Returns Directive. 81 Article 11(1) of PD 90/2008; for further analysis see The Dublin II Trap, pp 25-27. 82 "In the framework of a UNHCR run project that will run from June 2010, six lawyers will represent UNHCR as consultants and provide UNHCR expertise to the state authorities at the country’s points of entry on first reception, screening and refugee status determination procedures. One of the tasks of the lawyers will be to enhance capacity building at the local level in the provision of free legal aid to asylumseekers, which is otherwise not state-provided." UNHCR Greece, 4 June 2010. 83 Interview with P. Stefanou, President of the Prefecture Council of Chios, 18 December 2009; interview with Natasha Strahini, lawyer, 18 December 2009. 84 Interview with Efthalia Pappa, ECRP, 13 July 2010. 85 Interview with lawyer Mariana Tzeferakou, September 2009; see also, Human Rights Watch, Unsafe and Unwelcoming Shores, op. cit. 86 Interview with Natasha Strahini, lawyer, 18 December 2009. 87 UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988), Principles 16, 19 and 29 (2). Index: EUR 25/002/2010 Amnesty International July 2010