Asylum seekers. Under Presidential Decree 113/2013 an asylum seeker may be detained (1) for determination of his or her identity or origin; (2) if he or she threatens national security or public order, according to the reasoned judgment of the police authority; or (3) detention is considered necessary for the prompt and effective completion of the asylum application (Presidential Decree 114/2010, article 13(2)). Although the decree provides that an asylum seeker is not to be held in detention solely for entering the country without authorisation, there have been reports that in practice asylum seekers who enter irregularly are systematically detained (Presidential Decree 113/2013, article 12(1); UNHCR 2009). CAT has urged Greece to “ensure that administrative detention on the grounds of irregular entry is not applied to asylum seekers. In particular, detention of asylum seekers should be used only in exceptional circumstances or as a measure of last resort, on grounds specifically prescribed by law, and then only for the shortest possible time. To this end, alternatives to detention should be duly examined and exhausted, especially with regard to vulnerable groups” (CAT 2012). Since June 2013, when the new Asylum Service started operating, the asylum procedures are reportedly more efficient and fair (UNHCR 2013d). Previously, rights watchdogs contended that Greece’s asylum system is largely dysfunctional because it provides limited access to asylum procedures, there is a huge backlog in processing claims, the country has one of the lowest protection rates in the EU, and reception conditions are severely inadequate (HRW 2013). According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), people seeking international protection are forced to wait in long queues and are obliged to return repeatedly to get claims registered (UNHCR 2009). The Athens Aliens Police Directorate reputedly accepted only twenty applications per week (HRW 2013). There have also been reports of police actively preventing asylum seekers from filing asylum claims (Brothers 2007). These deficiencies in the asylum procedure prompted the European Court, in its landmark judgment in the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, to find Greece not a “safe country” for asylum seekers (ECtHR 2011a). By transferring the applicant to Greece on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation, Belgium was found to have violated its nonrefoulement obligations. The M.S.S. case was followed by the N.S. and M.E before the Court of Justice of European Union, which also dealt with transfers to Greece. According to that ruling, member states shall verify conditions in the receiving state before carrying out a Dublin transfer (CJEU 2011). After those landmark cases, most Schengen states suspended Dublin transfers to Greece. During the period January-September 2012, Greece transferred more people out of the country (144) than it received (38) under the Dublin system (AITIMA 2012). Still, some states—including Austria, Italy, Slovakia and Switzerland—have not adopted specific policies prohibiting transfers, instead proceeding on a case-by-case basis (Forum Réfugiés-Cosi et al 2013). Moreover, Italy has circumvented the effects of the European rulings by sending migrants to Greece pursuant to a bilateral readmission agreement between the countries. These practices have been challenged in the case Sharifi v. Italy and Greece, which as of early 2014 was pending before the Strasbourg 6