3. Safeguards against ill-treatment 29. During the 2023 visit, the CPT delegation met with numerous foreign nationals who were being detained for prolonged periods (over six months, and in some cases also over 12 months). Several persons had recently spent a total of 18 months in pre-removal detention and, after failing to leave the country voluntarily within a 25-day period, had been re-arrested and could potentially be detained for a further 18 months, despite the limited prospects of these persons being removed. Some persons continued to be detained after having applied for asylum in detention, according to applicable law. The Greek authorities also continue to regularly rely on public order grounds to justify pre-removal detention and asylum detention.9 The CPT notes that both the prolonged and cumulative application of pre-removal detention and asylum detention, and detention on public order grounds may raise issues in terms of compliance with the EU Asylum Procedures Directive and the EU Returns Directive.10 30. The CPT wishes to recall that deprivation of liberty for immigration purposes should remain a measure of last resort, after careful and individual examination of each case. In line with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee has long held that detained foreign nationals should benefit from an effective legal remedy enabling them to have the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty decided swiftly by a judicial body. This judicial review should entail an oral hearing with legal assistance, provided free of charge for persons without sufficient means, with interpretation services being provided as required. Moreover, detained foreign nationals should be expressly informed of this legal remedy. The need for their continued detention, which requires a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, should be subject to an effective periodic review by an independent authority. Although Greek law establishes an automatic review every three months of the legality of pre-removal detention and the detention of asylum seekers,11 the CPT found that, in practice, the reviews are conducted summarily and often without a personal hearing or without considering the individual situation of the person concerned. Detention orders appear to be automatically prolonged by the competent administrative courts, including for foreign nationals held for long durations (over 12 and up to 18 months). Specifically, the conditions of detention are usually not being considered in the context of the decision to prolong the detention of foreign nationals, including of asylum seekers, as required by law, and it appears that Greek administrative courts have to date been very reluctant to accept arguments related to inadequate conditions of detention. Further, appealing detention orders by means of lodging objections against an initial detention order, or its extension before the President of the competent administrative court, is practically impossible because these appeals must be submitted in writing, in the Greek language (see hereafter as regards access to interpretation services and access to a lawyer) and within a very short deadline. 31. The CPT recommends that the Greek authorities review their approach towards the detention of foreign nationals under immigration legislation to ensure that it is applied only as a measure of last resort in practice. Periodic reviews of all types of immigration detention should guarantee the right of the detained foreign national to be heard in person, and all decisions to confirm or prolong detention orders should be sufficiently reasoned. Further, these decisions should effectively consider whether there is a need for continued detention and a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, as well as the individual situation of the person concerned, including the conditions of detention in which they are held. 32. As was the case in 2018 and 2020, the Committee must once again conclude that there remains an acute lack of interpretation services in all the establishments visited during the 2023 visit. Further, access to information in a language and form that detained foreign nationals understand also remains insufficient. 9. Section 30 of Law 3907/2011. 10. See the judgment in the Kadzoev case (C-357/09 of 30 November 2009), in which the Court of Justice of the EU held that, if the maximum duration of pre-removal detention of 18 months has been reached, there was no longer a reasonable prospect of removal and the person must be immediately released. The Court also considered that pre-removal detention cannot be justified solely on account of public order considerations. 11. Section 30 (3) of Law 3907/2011 and Section 50 (5) of Law 4939/2022. 12