36 detention” the right to “take proceedings by administrative or judicial body. Although the which the lawfulness of his detention shall be authorities insist that the quarantine in decided speedily by a court and his release or- Lefkonia is not detention and so will not issue dered if the detention is not lawful” and is detention orders, they are still required to issue closely related to Art. 5(2). Article 13 ECHR more confinement orders in line with the March 25th generally guarantees the right to an effective Legislative Act. As they have never issued such remedy before a national authority against vio- an order, the remedy foreseen by that act is sim- lations of rights and freedoms laid down in the ilarly unavailable to asylum seekers in quaran- Convention. Where fundamental rights viola- tine. Even if it might be possible for someone to tions are at stake, the remedy must thoroughly indirectly challenge their quarantine – e.g., by and accurately examine such risks.124 filing a complaint against the failure to issue a The right to an effective remedy both protects a detention or confinement order – without infor- person’s fundamental rights and safeguards the mation on the reasons for detention, any theo- legal system as a whole.125 When a person’s fun- retical right to appeal against it is deprived of damental rights are at stake, as is the case when “all effective substance”129. Moreover, any rem- they are detained and under the full custody of the state, the CJEU has held that it is particu- edy would have to put forth legal arguments in Greek, and thus require a lawyer. However, law- larly important for judicial protection to be ef- yers are not allowed to enter Lefkonia, and the fective.126 The ECtHR has taken a similar police confiscates phones of persons quaran- approach to the right to an effective remedy in tined, making it structurally impossible for law- the case of detention (Article 5).127 yers to represent people in quarantine on Chios. Finally, in order for a remedy to be effective it Application must be accessible during a person’s detention, The absence of an individual assessment, a de- and it must be capable of leading to release.130 tention order, lack of information, inability to Thus, structural obstacles preventing access to speak to lawyers or contact the outside world all administrative procedures, courts, or legal prevent asylum seekers quarantined on Chios counsel as described above de facto amount to from having access to an effectively remedy. First, without a confinement or detention or- the deprivation of an effective legal remedy. der 128 , people have no means of directly challenging their detention before an ECtHR, Judgment of 21 January 2011, 30696/09, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, para. 387. CJEU, Judgement of 15 October 1987, UNECTEF v Heylens and others, 222/86; CJEU, Judgement of 7 May 1991, Irène Vlassopoulou contro Ministerium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten Baden-Württemberg, C-340/89. 126 CJEU, Judgement of 18 January 2007, Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Serif Vanly, on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union, C-229/05, para 110. 127 ECtHR, Judgement of 13 December 2016, 26623/07, Kaya v. Turkey; ECtHR, Judgement of 25 May 1998, 15/1997/799/1002, Kurt v. Turkey, 128 This report takes the position that the quarantine in Lefkonia is detention and therefore the distinction between a confinement and detention order is not significant and merely a matter of semantics. 129 ECtHR, Judgement of 15 December 2016, 16483/12, Khlaifa and Others, § 132. 124 125 ‘Quarantine of Asylum Seeker’ – A legal classification of the quarantine practice on Chios