36 continues to require that rejected asylum alternative measures to detention if there is no seekers submit proof of accommodation on Kos reason for detention in the first place. This as a part of their objections application. In 2/5 follows from Art. 15(2) of the Return Directive cases that Equal Rights submitted for rejected and Art. 30(4) L. 3907/11, which both state that asylum seekers, the decision found that the a person should be immediately released if the detention was unlawful but required the detention is not lawful. Based on that applicants to stay on Kos and report provision, the CJEU has held that “an periodically to the police. The conditions in alternative measure to detention can be those cases were imposed as an alternative envisaged only if the reason that justified the measure to detention because the applicants detention of the person concerned was and did not submit proof of permanent remains valid.”84 In the same case, the CJEU accommodation and so they, in the Court’s further held that Art. 15 of the Return Directive opinion, were at risk of absconding. In two precludes states from detaining rejected a other cases, the decision went a step further person “for the sole reason that he or she is the and concluded that, although the applicants’ subject of a return decision and is unable to detention was unlawful, they could not be provide for his or her needs.”85 Thus, as the released until they provided proof of Administrative Court of Rhodes generally permanent accommodation on Kos. However, accepts that there is no lawful basis for the applicants had been detained for as long as detaining rejected asylum seekers on Kos, it they had been on Kos and had no way to has no basis for imposing alternative measures submit a housing contract or hosting to detention either. Equal Rights has raised this agreement. Consequently, they remained in argument before the court, but it has yet to detention for more than a month after the address it directly. Court issued a decision finding their detention unlawful. Finally, in the one case where the Court rejected the objections, the decision did not refer to the lack of returns to Türkiye at all. Instead, the Court rejected the objections because the applicant did not submit “any evidence of the existence of available accommodation in which he could be accommodated until his removal from the country, nor any means of subsistence.” Although the decisions led to different The recent decisions from the Administrative Court of Rhodes not only erode the rule of law on Kos but actually deter people from submitting objections. During the latter half of 2022, the majority of Equal Rights’ detained clients turned down the opportunity to file objections because they preferred to spend the full six-month period in detention rather than risk having to indefinitely remain on Kos; the same trend is reported by other professionals on the field as well. outcomes—in two cases the applicants were released and in the other three they remained in detention—all five are fundamentally unlawful. There is no legal basis for imposing 84 CJEU judgment of 14/05/2020 - C-924/19 PPU & C-925/19 PPU - FMS and Others, para., 293. 85 CJEU judgment of 14/05/2020 - C-924/19 PPU & C-925/19 PPU - FMS and Others, para., 6. ‘Still detained and forgotten’ – Update on Detention Policies, Practices, and Conditions on Kos 2022/23