Author
Asylum detention
According to Article 50 Asylum Code, an asylum applicant shall not be detained on the sole ground of seeking international protection or having entered and/or stayed in the country irregularly.[1]Article 50(2)(3) Asylum Code also provided that such a detention measure should be applied exceptionally, after an individual assessment and only as a measure of last resort where no alternative measures can be applied. A detention order under the Asylum Code is issued following prior notification by the Head of the Asylum Service (with the exception of detention on public order/national security grounds). However, the final decision on the detention lies with the Police.
Article 50(2) of the Asylum Code foresees the possibility to detain asylum applicants who have already applied for asylum while at liberty. Article 50(3) of the Asylum Code provides that an asylum applicant may remain in detention if they are already detained for the purpose of removal when they make an application for international protection, and subject to a new detention order following an individualised assessment. In this case, the asylum applicant may be kept in detention on the basis of one of the following five grounds:[2]
- in order to determine their identity or nationality;
- in order to determine those elements on which the application for international protection is based which could not be obtained otherwise, in particular when there is a risk of absconding of the applicant;
- when it is ascertained on the basis of objective criteria, including that they already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is making the application for international protection merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a return decision, if it is probable that the enforcement of such a measure can be affected;
- when they constitute a danger for national security or public order;
- when there is a serious risk of absconding by the applicant, in order to ensure the enforcement of a transfer decision according to the Dublin III Regulation.
For the establishment of a risk of absconding for the purposes of detaining asylum applicants on grounds (b) and (e), the law refers to the definition of “risk of absconding” in pre-removal detention.[3] The relevant provision of national law includes a non-exhaustive list[4] of objective criteria which may be used as a basis for determining the existence of such a risk. Additional criteria as the ‘lack of a residence or a known accommodation’ have been added with L. 5226/2025.[5] As underlined by UNHCR, “the broadening of the criteria for determining a “risk of absconding,” which may lead to arbitrary detention, in particular when the ground is applied without proper justification”.[6]
The interpretation of the legal grounds for detention in practice
There is a lack of a comprehensive individualised procedure for each detention case, despite the relevant legal obligation to do so. This is of particular concern with regard to the proper application of the lawful detention grounds provided by national legislation, as the particular circumstances of each case are not duly taken into consideration. Furthermore, the conditions and the legal grounds for the lawful imposition of a detention measure seem to be misinterpreted in some cases. These cases include the following:
– Excessive use of “risk of absconding” grounds even in cases not justified by the circumstances of the case and/or the detention is not necessary “in order to determine those elements on which the application for international protection is based which could not be obtained otherwise” as required by law.
– Detention on public order or national security grounds without proper justification, based solely on a prior prosecution for a minor offence even in cases where the competent Criminal Court has decided to suspended the custodial sentences.[7] Detention on this ground has also been imposed following a criminal Court Decision on irregular stay/entry.
– Detention despite the lack of actual prospect of return. For example at the end of 2025 a number of about 300 Afghans were detained in PRDCs across the country,[8] while the Hellenic Police officially stated that returns to Afghanistan have been halted since 2021 onwards. [9] A total of 4,330 detention orders have been issued against Afghan nationals during 2025, following a removal decision.[10]
– Detention of applicants who have already asked for asylum though the online platform or persons who did not have the opportunity to apply for asylum while at liberty due to the misfunction of the online platform. Accessing the online platform and scheduling an appointment to apply for asylum is pre-requirement in order an asylum application to be fully registered by the Authorities for persons in mainland Greece. Said platform was not in operation for significant periods during 2025.
Moreover, following the three months suspension of asylum in July 2025 for persons arriving by sea from North Africa, pursuant to Article 79 L. 5218/2025,[11] all newly arrived persons subjected to the suspension have been automatically placed in pre-removal detention without having the possibility to apply for asylum.
Detention without legal basis or de facto detention
Apart from detention of asylum applicants under the Asylum Code and pre-removal detention under L 3386/2005 and L 3907/2011 and L. 5226/2025, detention without legal basis in national law or de facto detention measures are being applied for immigration purposes. These cases include the following:
Detention upon entry in RICs or in the ‘Closed Controlled Access Centres’ (CCAC)
Since mid-2022 persons willing to apply for asylum on the mainland have to present themselves to Malakasa Reception and Identification Centers (RIC) –for South Greece– or Diavata RIC –for North Greece– in order to undergo reception and identification procedures and for the full registration of their asylum application. Similarly, on the islands, newly arrived persons are transferred to Closed Controlled Access Centers (CCAC) for reception and identification and for the registration of their application (see sections on The domestic framework: Reception and Identification Centres & Registration of the asylum application).
In both cases, as prescribed by Article 40 Asylum Code, all persons in mainland RICs or CCAC on the islands are subject to an up to 25-day restriction of their personal liberty within the premises of the RIC/CCAC. This is a measure amounting to de facto deprivation of liberty, applied in a generalised and indiscriminate manner. Depending on the registration capacity/workload of the Authorities, prior of the Decision restricting the liberty within the premises of RIC, additional “waiting periods” within the premises of RICs/CCAC are applied which may also amount to de facto detention. This means that, in practice, the only option for persons willing to apply for asylum in Greece is to be subjected to a de facto detention measure. An infringement letter has been sent to the Greek Authorities by the EU Commission on the ground that this provision leads to blanket and de facto detention of asylum applicants, while in accordance with EU law, the detention of asylum applicants can only be imposed exceptionally and under the condition that one of the grounds prescribed in Directive 2013/33/EU is met.[12] Greek Courts have repeatedly found that said measure amounts to de facto detention.[13]
De facto detention in pushback cases
Allegations of de facto detention without following any formal procedure for those subjected to a force informal removal (pushback) at the borders has been long reported and it has been considered as part of the modus operandi of such illegal operations.[14]
In this regard, in the landmark judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in A.R.E. v Greece,[15] supported by GCR, the Court additionally found a violation of Article 5 ECHR due to the informal and arbitrary de facto detention of the Applicant prior of the pushback thought out the Evros river. In this case, the Court refers to “a kind of temporary forced disappearance”.[16]
[1] Article 50(1) Asylum Code.
[2] Article 50(3) Asylum Code.
[3] Article 18(g) L 3907/2011, cited by Article 50(2-b) and 50(3-b) Asylum Code.
[4] The fact that national legislation includes a non-exhaustive and indicative list of such criteria, thus allowing for other criteria not explicitly defined by law to be used for determining the existence of the “risk of absconding”, is not in line with the relevant provision of EU law, according to which said objective criteria ‘must be defined by law’, see inter alia Article 3(7) Directive 2008/115/EC; see CJEU, C 241/21, 6 October 2022, para. 50 and mutandis mutandis CJEU, C-528/15, Al Chodor, 15 March 2017, para. 47.
[5] Article 4 L. 5226/2025.
[6] UNHCR Comments on the Draft Law of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum, 29 August 2025, https://www.unhcr.org/gr/en/unhcr-comments-draft-law.
[7] Administrative Court of Kavala, Decision ΑΡ211/2025, Administrative Court of Rhodes, Decision ΑΡ50/2025, excerpts available at: https://gcr.gr/wp-content/uploads/Deltio_nomologias_1_2025_GR.pdf, pp. 57-58.
[8] Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 6 March 2026.
[9] Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 6 March 2026.
[10] Information provided by the Directorate of the Hellenic Police, 6 March 2026.
[11] Ministry of Migration and Asylum, Reply in Parliamentary Question, Doc no 237928, 11 December 2025 and Ministry of Citizens Protection, Reply in Parliamentary Question, Doc no 7017/4/27937-γ’, 13 December 2025, see https://tinyurl.com/tf65bnhw.
[12] European Commission, January Infringements package: key decisions, 26 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/45tH02U.
[13] For example Administrative Court of Athens, Decision ΑΡ539/2025 & Administrative Court of Rhodes, Decision ΑΡ16/2025
[14] See inter alia GNCHR, RECORDING MECHANISM OF INCIDENTS OF INFORMAL FORCED RETURNS, ANNUAL REPORT 2024, pp. 29-32, https://nchr.gr/images/rec_mechanism/Annual_Report_2024.pdf
[15] For more information, see Access to the territory and pushbacks.
[16] A.R.E. v. GREECE, application No 15783/21, 07/01/2025, para. 288.