Coping with a fundamental rights emergency – The situation of people crossing the Greek border in an irregular manner such as Afghanistan, Somalia or Iraq: Figure 4 shows that in 2010, over 28,000 Afghans, 7,500 Palestinians, 6,500 Somalis and nearly 5,000 Iraqis were apprehended after having entered Greece in an irregular manner, many of whom at the border in Evros. Some try to lodge an asylum application after their release from detention and arrival in Athens, which creates additional resource problems to the Aliens Directorate in Athens. Figure 5: Number of apprehensions in Greece, by nationality, 2010 Georgia; 1,456 Iran; 1,133 Eritrea; 1,628 Morocco; 1,645 Others; 9,704 Bangladesh; 3,264 Iraq; 4,968 Albania; 50,175 Somalia; 6,525 Algeria; 7,336 Palestine; 7,561 Pakistan; 8,830 Afghanistan; 28,299 Source: Hellenic Ministry of Citizen Protection, 2010 The nationality screening carried out by joint FRONTEX and Hellenic police teams has decreased the number of migrants registered under the wrong nationality. Since the deployment of screeners by FRONTEX under the Attica30 project the number of persons registered, for example, as Palestinians decreased substantially, as many of them were identified as coming from North African countries. The FRA is of the view that a proper identification of nationality is helpful, both for subsequent asylum procedures as well as return procedures, including avoiding the deprivation of liberty of individuals when there are no tangible prospects for removal.31 However, given its implications for the further treatment of a migrant, the evidence used to determine the nationality should be recorded, so as to allow the person to rebut it, when challenging the detention or deportation decision. The FRA welcomes that a standardised form has been introduced to document this 30 See http://www.frontex.europa.eu/download/Z2Z4L2Zyb250ZXgvZW4vZGVmYXVsdF9tdWx0aWxpc3RhX3BsaWtvdy8xMzY/operatio nal_activity_in_greece.doc. 31 See Return Directive Art. 15 (4) – 15 (6). Art. 15 (4) provides that “When it appears that a reasonable prospect of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations or the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 no longer exist, detention ceases to be justified and the person concerned shall be released immediately.” In the Grand Chamber case Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia ‘Migratsia’ pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti of 30 November 2009, the CJEU clarified that the concept of ‘reasonable prospect of removal’ “must be interpreted as meaning that only a real prospect that removal can be carried out successfully, having regard to the periods laid down in Article 15 (5) and (6), corresponds to a reasonable prospect of removal, and that that reasonable prospect does not exist where it appears unlikely that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country, having regard to those periods,” (para. 72 (5)). 23