62
without including sufficient references to the facts or to
information relating to the country of origin. The grounds
for rejection were usually standardized, and assumed
economic motivations for leaving his/her country of origin
of behalf of the applicant.
Even after the publication of PD 114/2010, the quality of
the first interview in the Evros area remained inadequate.
The vast majority of asylum claims are examined according
to the accelerated procedure. The decisions are then made
by the Police Directorate of Orestiada.
Almost every request for international protection has been
dismissed in the first instance by a decision drafted in
stereotypical terms (only one subsidiary status was granted
to a detainee in the Evros region between December 2010
and October 2011). The decisions contain stereotypes like
in the following example:
Until the publication of PD 114/2010, asylum-seekers
did not have access to an effective remedy against negative decisions in the first instance (see MSS v. Belgium and
Greece). The rejected asylum seekers in detention faced
the threat of expulsion without having access to prescribed
legal remedies against the negative decision, which was
considered to be ineffective (annulment application before
the Council of State in Athens).
After the publication of PD 14/2011 the detainees gained
the right to appeal before an Appeals Committee, but
access to the legal remedy was not guaranteed for the
following reasons:
a) The asylum decision is only in Greek language and
the detainees were not properly informed about their
deadline for the appeal.
b) The detainees cannot write the appeal by themselves
in Greek. They need the support of a lawyer.
c) There is a lack of a legal aid scheme.
According to PD 114/2010, asylum seekers whose asylum
application was rejected before December, 2010, had the
opportunity to appeal before the Appeals Committee
within a deadline of three months (until February, 2011).
The police officers never informed the rejected asylum
seekers that they had to lodge this kind of appeal within
the deadline. On the contrary, the detainees were kept in
detention facing deportation, despite the expulsion being
suspended during the period of those three months.
9. Asylum and the asylum procedure in detention
9.4. Withdrawal from the asylum
procedure
During the mission we became aware of cases of withdrawal of asylum applications under ambiguous conditions.
It seems that in some cases the police »persuaded« asylum
seekers to withdraw their asylum claim. The deplorable
detention conditions affected the detainees deeply.
R.T., detainee in the border guard station of Tychero, had
applied for asylum and, pending his asylum claim, he was
readmitted to Turkey. After interventions he was returned
to Greece. He stayed again in degrading detention conditions in Tychero. In detention he was informed that his
son, who had been living in Iraq, had passed away. He
understood that the police told him that the only way to
be released soon and travel back to Iraq in order to attend
the funeral was to sign some papers, whose content he did
not understand. He unwittingly withdrew from his asylum
claim and faced the risk of being deported back to Iran.
F.H. was arrested on December 16, 2011. On December 20,
2010 he had applied for asylum after the intervention of a
lawyer. On December 24, 2011, after lodging an asylum
application, the police ordered his deportation and detention. On January 8, 2011 it seemed that F.H. had resigned
from the asylum application, though he was unaware of it.
With the intervention of a lawyer he repeated / re-submitted his request for asylum.
S.G., an Iranian national and unaccompanied minor who
reached adulthood in detention, was detained in the border guard station of Tychero. He claimed asylum with the
support of a GCR-lawyer. The doctor examined him and
diagnosed a psychological disorder on July 5, 2011. The
police seem to have misled him by telling him that he
had to resign from his asylum application in order to be
released. On July7, 2011 his detention was lifted on the
basis of the medical problems. He was ordered to leave the
country within in 30 days as there was a pending deportation order against him. He was arrested once more and
again faced the threat of expulsion to Iran.
T.D. from Iraq was detained in the border guard station of
Tychero. A deportation decision was issued against him on
March 4, 2011. He had applied for asylum with the support
of a private lawyer. On July 5, 2011 the doctor diagnosed
him as suffering from allergic asthma; said that he had
suffered two (asthma) attacks in February, 2011 and June
24, 2011, that he should be receiving medical treatment,
and that the detention conditions were exacerbating his
medical condition. The police seem to have misled him by
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents