Conditions in detention facilities

Greece

Country Report: Conditions in detention facilities Last updated: 30/11/20

Author

Greek Council for Refugees Visit Website

The law sets out certain special guarantees on detention conditions for asylum seekers. Notably, the authorities must make efforts to ensure that detainees have necessary medical care, and their right to legal representation should be guaranteed.[1] In any event, according to the law, “difficulties in ensuring decent living conditions… shall be taken into account when deciding to detain or to prolong detention.”[2]

However, as it has been consistently reported by a range of actors, detention conditions for third-country nationals, including asylum seekers, do not meet the basic standards in Greece.

 

Conditions in pre-removal centres

 

Physical conditions and activities

According to the law, detained asylum seekers shall have outdoor access.[3] Women and men shall be detained separately,[4] unaccompanied children shall be held separately from adults,[5] and families shall be held together to ensure family unity.[6] Moreover, the possibility to engage in leisure activities shall be granted to children.[7]

GCR regularly visits the pre-removal facilities depending on needs and availability of resources. According to GCR findings, as corroborated by national and international bodies, conditions in pre-removal detention facilities vary to a great extent and in many cases fail to meet standards.

Overall detention conditions in pre-removal detention facilities (PRDFs) remain substandard, despite some good practices, which have been adopted in some pre-removal detention facilities (such as allowing detainees to use their mobile phones). Major concerns include a carceral, prison-like design, the lack of sufficient hygiene and non-food items, including clothes and shoes, clean mattresses and clean blankets, the lack of recreational activities, and overcrowding persisting in some facilities. The provision of medical services in PRDFs remains critical, as the available resources remain inadequate with respect to observed needs.[8] The precise observations for each PRDF, included on the previous AIDA report, are still valid.[9]

As noted by UNHCR in May 2019 “conditions and procedural safeguards continue to be problematic … Some of the main deficiencies of concern to UNHCR include:[…] seriously substandard conditions of detention in the pre-removal centres, in particular in P. Ralli in Athens and Fylakio at Evros”.[10]

In June 2019, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, within the framework of the supervision of the execution of the M.S.S. and Rahimi group of judgments “invited the authorities to give effect to the recommendations made by the CPT and to improve the conditions in immigration detention facilities, including by providing adequate health-care services”.[11]

In its 2019 Annual Report the Ombudsman identified, during the monitoring visits in pre-removal detention facilities the inadequate provision of health services (with an extreme example being Moria PRDF) and insufficient maintenance of the facilities (with an extreme example being PRDF in Xanthi)”, as an ongoing problem.[12]

Health care in detention

The law states that the authorities shall make efforts to guarantee access to health care for detained asylum seekers.[13] Since 2017, the responsibility for the provision of medical services in pre-removal detention centres was transferred to the Ministry of Health, and in particular the Health Unit SA (Ανώνυμη Εταιρεία Μονάδων Υγείας, AEMY), a public limited company under the supervision of Ministry of Health.[14]

However, substantial medical staff shortage has been observed in PRDFs already since the previous years and the finding of the CPT in 2018 regarding the provision of health care in pre-removal centres are still valid. As the CPT has mentioned “the available resources are totally inadequate compared to the needs observed. The number of health-care staff in each of the centres is insufficient. In some centres, there is no doctor and even the most basic medical equipment is lacking. There is also a total lack of effective routine medical screening of new arrivals, including screening for contagious diseases or vulnerabilities. In short, even the most basic health-care needs of detained persons are not being met.”[15]

Official statistics demonstrate that the situation has worsened in 2019 and that pre-removal centres continue to face even more substantial medical staff shortage. At the end of 2019, there were a mere four doctors in total in the detention centres (1 in Amygdaleza, 1 in Korinthos, 1 in Xanthi and 1 in Fylakio). There was no doctor present in Tavros and Paranesti on the mainland. Moreover on the Eastern Aegean islands PRDFs (Lesvos PRDF and Kos PRDF), i.e. where persons are detained inter alia in order to be subject to readmission within the framework of the EU-Turkey Statement, there is no doctor, no interpreter and no physiatrist present.[16]

According to the official data, the coverage (in percentage) of the required staff in 2019 was as follows:

 

Provision of medical/health care

Provision of phycological care

Provision of social support services

Provision of interpretation services

Doctors: 22.22%  

Physiatrists: 12.50% 

Social workers: 70 %

Interpreters: 19.23%

Nurses: 57.50%

Phycologists: 80%

Health visitors: 37.50%

Administrators: 63.64%

Source: Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 8 February 2020.

 

More precisely, at the end of 2019, the number of AEMY staff present on each pre-removal detention centre was as follows:

AEMY staff active in pre-removal centres: 31 December 2019

 

Category

Amygdaleza

Tavros

Corinth

Paranesti

Xanthi

Fylakio

Lesvos

Kos

Doctors

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

Psychiatrists

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nurses

1

2

3

4

5

4

0

4

Interpreters

1

1

2

0

1

0

0

0

Psychologists

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

0

Social workers

1

1

2

1

1

0

0

1

Health visitors

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

Administrators

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

                   

Source: Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 8 February 2020.

 

Conditions in police stations and other facilities

In 2019, GCR visited more than 25 police stations and special holding facilities were third-country nationals were detained:

  • Attica:  police stations inter alia in Athens International Airport, Agios Panteleimonas, Vyronas, Piraeus, Syntagma, Drapetsona, Dionysos, Neo Iraklio, Kaminia, Kypseli;
  • Northern Greece: police stations inter alia in Transfer Directorate (Μεταγωγών), Thermi, Agiou Athanasiou, Raidestou;
  • Eastern Aegean islands: police stations inter alia on Rhodes, Leros, Lesvos, Chios and Samos.

Police stations are by nature “totally unsuitable” for detaining persons for longer than 24 hours.[17] However, they are constantly used for prolonged migration detention. As mentioned above and according to the official data there were 1,021 persons in administrative detention at the end of 2019 in facilities other than pre-removal centres, of whom 212 were asylum seekers.[18] According to GCR findings, detainees in police stations live in substandard conditions as a rule, i.e. no outdoor access, poor sanitary conditions, lack of sufficient natural light, no provision of clothing or sanitary products, insufficient food, no interpretation services and no medical services; the provision of medical services by AEMY concerns only pre-removal detention centres and does not cover persons detained in police stations.

Similarly, CPT, following its visit in Greece in 2018 repeated that the detention facilities in most of the police stations are totally unsuitable for holding persons for periods exceeding 24 hours[19]. Despite this, police stations throughout Greece are still being used for holding irregular migrants for prolonged periods. GCR has supported several cases in 2019 in which migrants remained in detention for several days, even months: A citizen of Pakistan in detention in Piraeus police station for two months; 2 men of Palestinian origin in detention in Aghios Panteleimonas and Kallithea police station for one and a half months; A man of Palestinian origin in detention in Drapetsona police station for a month; A person from Pakistan in detention in Dionysos and Neo Iraklio police stations for a period of one and a half months.

Special mention should be made of the detention facilities of the Aliens Directorate of Thessaloniki (Μεταγωγών). Although the facility is a former factory warehouse, completely inadequate for detention, it continues to be used systematically for detaining a significant number of persons for prolonged periods.[20]

The ECtHR has consistently held that prolonged detention in police stations per se is not in line with guarantees provided under Article 3 ECHR.[21] In June 2018, it found a violation of Article 3 ECHR in S.Z. v. Greece concerning a Syrian applicant detained for 52 days in a police station in Athens.[22] In February 2019, it found a violation of Article 3 ECHR due to the conditions of “protective custody” of unaccompanied children in different police stations in Northern Greece such as Axioupoli and Polykastro.[23] In June 2019, the Court found that the conditions of the detention of 3 unaccompanied minors under the pretext of protective custody for 24 days, 35 days and 8 days at Polikastro police station, Igoumentisa port police station and Filiatra police station and Agios Stefanos police station and the cell of the Police Directorate of Athens respectively, were not in line with Art. 3 ECHR.[24]



[1] Article 46(10)(d) and (e), and (10A) L 4375/2016 .

[2] Article 46(8) L4375/2016; now Article 46(2) and 46(3) IPA.

[3] Article 46(10)(b) L 4375/2016, as amended by Article 9 L 4540/2018.

[4] Article 46(10A)(e) L 4375/2016, inserted by Article 10 L 4540/2018.

[5] Article 46(10A)(b) L 4375/2016, inserted by Article 10 L 4540/2018.

[6] Articles 47(5)(a) 46(10A)(d) L 4375/2016, inserted by Article 10 L 4540/2018.

[7] Article 46(10A)(c) L 4375/2016, inserted by Article 10 L 4540/2018.

[8]  Global Detention Project/Greek Council for Refugees, Joint Submission to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in Preparation for its Mission to Greece in December 2019, October 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3cqZplk.

[9] AIDA, Report on Greece, Update on 2018, pp. 166-167.

[10] UNHCR, “Recommendations by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) concerning the execution of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Application No. 30696/09, Grand Chamber judgment of 21 January 2011) and of Rahimi v. Greece (Application No. 8687/08, Chamber judgment of 05 April 2011)”, 15 May 2019, page 6.

[11] Committee of Ministers (1348 meeting (DH) June 2019 – H46-9), Decisions CM/Del/Dec(2019)1348, H46-9 6 June 2019, CM/Notes/1348/H46-9, available at: https://bit.ly/2TD8qk5.

[12] Greek Ombudsman, Annual Report 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3fZEaZJ, 144.

[13]  Article 46(10)(f) L 4375/2016, as amended by Article 9 L 4540/2018.

[14] Article 47(1) L 4461/2017.

[15] CPT, Preliminary  observations  made  by  the  CPT  which  visited  Greece  from  10  to  19  April 2018, CPT/Inf (2018) 20, 1 June 2018, para 21.

[16] Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 8 February 2020.

[17]CPT, Report on the visit to Greece from 13 to 18 April and 19 to 25 July 2016, CPT/Inf (2017) 25, 26 September 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/2g4Y9bU, 6.

[18] Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 8 February 2020.

[19]  CPT, Report on the visit to Greece, from 10 to 19 April 2018, CPT/Inf (2019) 4, 19 February 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2T0peQb, para 84

[20]  Ombudsman, Συνηγορος του Πολίτη, Εθνικός Μηχανισμός Πρόληψης των Βασανιστηρίων & της Κακομεταχείρισης – Ετήσια Ειδική Έκθεση OPCAT 2017, 46.

[21] ECtHR, Ahmade v. Greece, Application No 50520/09, Judgment of 25 September 2012, para 101.

[22]  ECtHR, S.Z. v. Greece, Application No 66702/13, Judgment of 21 June 2018, para 40.

[23] ECtHR, H.A. and others v. Greece, Application No 19951/16, Judgment of 28 February 2019, EDAL, available at: https://bit.ly/2FCoVFP.

[24] Sh.D. and Others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia (application no. 14165/16).

 

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation