As for the conditions of detention in Malakasa, the Court rejected the applicants’
submissions on the ground that the conditions described earlier did not exceed the
“inevitable level of hardship” attached to deprivation liberty so as to amount to
inhuman or degrading treatment, and found the detention conditions appropriate
even for two women in advanced pregnancy. It also dismissed alleged risks of
exposure to COVID-19 as unsubstantiated.39
In two rulings concerning women in advanced pregnancy and their spouses,
Administrative Court of Athens held that it was more appropriate for the applicants to
remain detained in the detention facility where they were held, in order to receive
food and to benefit from medical observation and psychosocial support – although
no such evidence existed or was put forward by the authorities – rather than being
released and transferred to other forms of accommodation.40 In both cases, the
Court based its decision to dismiss the appeal on the fact that the appellants had
arrived undocumented through Turkey, that they lacked travel documents, that they
were “accommodated in accommodation facilities in Malakasa”, that they “had
never declared that they suffered from a serious medical problem” – despite
evidence submitted to the opposite – that they were never hospitalized in a hospital
or had asked for permission to a medical centre, and that they had not submitted
annulment applications against the rejection of their appeals against the deportation
orders. Lastly, the Court added that it took into account the availability of
appropriate accommodation facilities and the possibility of securing dignified living
conditions in existing facilities, without providing any further explanation. 41 In all cases,
the Court regrettably failed to conduct a thorough examination of the detention
conditions and their suitability for the applicants needs and situation.
In another case concerning an Afghan family with an 8-month child, due to the fact
that the applicants had been issued an order by the Aliens Directorate of Attica
terminating their detention decision on 7 April 2020, the Administrative Court of
Athens dismissed the objections against their detention. 42 The family nevertheless
remains in the facility at the time of writing.
To RSA’s knowledge, objections against detention lodged by persons detained in
Serres have also been rejected.
3. Application before the European Court of Human Rights
Two cases regarding the legality of detention of minors detained in the framework of
the March Decree where also brought by RSA before the ECtHR to indicate interim
measures. In particular the ECtHR was seized in the case of R.H. and R.A., two
unaccompanied children from Syria, who arrived in Greece after the entry into force
of the Decree and were detained initially in the Port of Mytilene and subsequently in
the Rhodes vessel and the Malakasa detention centre. Until the end of March 2020,
the National Centre for Social Solidarity (Εθνικό Κέντρο Κοινωνικής Αλληλεγγύης,
EKKA) had received no official information on steps to transfer the children to a
specialised accommodation shelter for minors.43
39
40
41
42
43
Administrative Court of Athens, Decisions 358/2020, 359/2020 and 360/2020, 7 April 2020,
para 4. Unofficial translation from the author.
Administrative Court of Athens, Decision 356/2020, 3 April 2020, para 5; Decision
357/2020, 3 April 2020, para 5.
Ibid.
Administrative Court of Athens, Decision 367/2020, 9 April 2020.
Information provided by EKKA via email, 31 March 2020.
RSA LEGAL NOTE │ 2020
8