Author
Automatic judicial review
The Asylum Code provides for an ex officio judicial control of the detention decision of asylum applicants. The procedure is largely based on the procedure already in place for the automatic judicial review of the decisions extending the detention of third-country nationals in view of return under L 3907/2011.[1]
Article 50(5) Asylum Code reads as follows:
‘In case of prolongation of detention, the order for the prolongation of detention shall be transmitted to the President of the Administrative Court of First Instance, or the judge appointed thereby, who is territorially competent for the applicant’s place of detention and who decides on the legality of the detention measure and issues immediately his decision, in a brief record.’
Statistics on the outcome of ex officio judicial scrutiny confirm that the procedure is highly problematic and illustrates the rudimentary and ineffective way in which this judicial review takes place.
During 2025, out of the total 3,028 decisions of the administrative courts issued within the framework of the ex officio judicial review, only 0.8% (30 decisions) rejected the prolongation of detention.[2]
Objections against detention
Apart from the automatic judicial review procedure, asylum applicants may challenge detention through “objections against detention” before the Administrative Court,[3] which is the only legal remedy provided by national legislation to this end. Objections against detention are not examined by a court composition but solely by the President of the Administrative Court, whose decision is non-appealable.
In practice, the ability for detained persons to challenge their detention is severely restricted due to ongoing ‘gaps in the provision of interpretation and legal aid, resulting in the lack of access to judicial remedies against the detention decisions’.
Firstly, and as a rule, persons in administrative detention are not informed on the grounds of their detention and of the possibility to lodge Objections against them. Detention orders and other relevant documents are communicated to detainees in Greek and are not translated or explained in a language they understand. Moreover, even in case where detainees are actually provided with an “information brochure” in their language, said “information brochure” fails to ensure the provision of information in a simple and accessible manner. Namely, this is the same document which the European Court of Human Rights has already deemed as not capable of providing information in a simple and accessible language, so as for detainees to be reasonably expected to understand the factual and legal grounds of their detention and avail themselves of the legal remedies provided by Greek Law.[4]
Secondly, Greece has still not set up a free legal assistance scheme for review of detention orders before Administrative Courts and in practice detainees cannot effectively lodge Objections against their detention.
Official statistical data corroborate that the vast majority of detainees do not have access to a remedy against detention.[5]
| Year | Total number of detention orders issued (return/deportation and asylum procedure) | Total number of Objection against detention submitted before Administrative Courts | % |
| 2025 | 25,497 | 3,878 | 15.% |
The findings by the CPT corroborate that the lack of information remains a structural and longstanding issue that has not been remedied by Greece’s amendments of immigration legislation over the past decade neither addressed through any change in practice. In its 2024 report, following the visit of the delegation in November 2023, the Committee noted the long-term nature of the issues related to information provision in the context of immigration detention:
‘As was the case in 2018 and 2020, the Committee must once again conclude that there remains an acute lack of interpretation services in all the establishments visited during the 2023 visit. Further, access to information in a language and form that detained foreign nationals understand also remains insufficient […] most detained foreign nationals stated once again that they had signed documents in the Greek language without knowing their content and without having benefitted from the assistance of a qualified interpreter. Indeed, nearly all official documents, including detention and deportation orders, were only available in the Greek language and were usually not translated for the persons concerned […] most detained foreign nationals complained that they were not sufficiently informed of their rights and their situation in a language they could understand. Many persons indicated that they had not received a copy of the information leaflet in a language that they could understand.’[6]
Moreover, the CPT has highlighted concerns regarding access to legal aid in 2020 and again in 2024, including the “often theoretical and illusory” access to a lawyer and the inadequate provision of legal advice which reduced the detainee’s ability to use “objections against detention”.[7] This remains the case up until the date of writing of this report.
Over the years the ECtHR has found that the objections remedy is not accessible in practice,[8] that detention order are only written in Greek and include general and vague references regarding the legal avenues available to the applicants to challenge their detention and that applicants do not appear to have access to lawyers.[9]
Moreover, the ECtHR has found on various occasions the objections procedure to be an ineffective remedy, contrary to Article 5(4) ECHR,[10] as the lawfulness of detention, including detention conditions, was not examined. In order to bring national law in line with ECHR standards, legislation was amended in 2010. Notwithstanding, the ECtHR subsequently found in a number of cases that the lawfulness of applicants’ detention had not been examined in a manner equivalent to the standards required by Article 5(4) ECHR,[11] and “the applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to an extent sufficient to reflect the possibilities offered by the amended version” of the law.[12]
In the ECtHR judgment of 15 October 2024 in H.T. v Germany and Greece, supported by GCR, the Court found again a violation of Article 5(4) ECHR due to the lack of effective examination of the detention by the domestic court following the ”objections against detention” submitted by the applicant.[13] Lack of effective remedies against detention was also found in the ECtHR’s Decision in the case of B.F. v. Greece (App. No. 59816/13), which became final in January 2026. This case law of the ECtHR illustrates that the amendment of the national legislation cannot itself guarantee an effective legal remedy in order to challenge immigration detention, including the detention of asylum applicants.[14]
Effectiveness of the judicial review in Objection against detention
Based on the cases supported by GCR, it seems that the objections procedure may be marred by a lack of legal security and predictability, which is aggravated by the fact that no appeal stage is provided in order to harmonise and/or correct the decisions of the Administrative Courts. GCR has supported a number of cases where the relevant Administrative Courts’ decisions were contradictory, even though the facts were substantially the same. A more detailed analysis of the case law of the Greek Court and the effectiveness of the remedy against detention can be found in the Joint GCR/ECRE Submission before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe with regards the execution of the MD v. Greece group of cases.[15] These findings are valid up until the date of writing this report.
The Decisions of the Athens Administrative Court on Objections against detention submitted by Sudanese refugees detained during the 3 months suspension of access to asylum in PRDFs is an illustrative example of lack of effectiveness of the national remedy against detention. These persons were detained based on a return Decision despite having expressed their will for asylum, Interim Measures and temporary protection against removal has been provided by the ECtHR and domestic Courts and additionally complained for their detention conditions. The Court rejected the remedy without properly examining the allegation of the Applicant that their removal was not feasible, that the detention has been ordered on a wrong legal basis and dismissed the allegations on detention conditions by not accepting the videos and photos submitted an evidence to be examined by the Court.[16]
[1] Article 30(3) L 3907/2011.
[2] Per a March 2026 reply of the Ministry of Justice to a parliamentary question. See RSA, Deportation and immigration detention statistics in Greece in 2025, 31 March 2026, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3meetrzh, p.7.
[3] Article 50(6) Asylum Code, citing Article 76(3)-(4) L 3386/2005.
[4] J.R. and other v. Greece, op.cit., paras. 123-124; O.S.A and other v. Greece, op.cit, para. 54 and Kaak and other v. Greece, op. cit. para. 123.
[5] RSA, Deportation and immigration detention statistics in Greece in 2025, 31 March 2026, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3meetrzh.
[6] CPT, Report to the Greek Government on the visit to Greece carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 20 November to 1 December 2023, CPT/Inf (2024) 21, 12 July 2024, paras. 32-33 and 36, available here.
[7] Committee for the Prevention of Torture, Report to the Greek Government on the visit to Greece carried out by the CPT from 13 to 17 March 2020, CPT/Inf (2020) 35, 19 November 2020, para. 22; Committee for the Prevention of Torture, CPT/Inf (2024) 21, op.cit., para. 41.
[8] ECtHR, J.R. and Others v. Greece, Application No 22696/16, Judgment of 25 January 2018, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3MAFjYN, para 99.
[9] ECtHR, O.S.A. v. Greece, Application No 39065/16, Judgment of 21 March 2019, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3WwhOEU; ECHR, Kaak v. Greece, Application No 34215/16, Judgment of 3 October 2019, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/43bEmgD.
[10] See e.g., ECtHR, Rahimi v. Greece Application No 8687/08, Judgment of 5 April 2011, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3IDXE69; R.U. v. Greece Application No 2237/08, Judgment of 7 June 2011, available at: https://bit.ly/3MA2QsP; C.D. v. Greece, Application No 33468/10, Judgment of 19 March 2014, available at: https://bit.ly/3RH72us.
[11] ECtHR, R.T. v. Greece, Application no 5124/11, Judgment of 11 February 2016, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3qdUKhU; Mahammad and others v. Greece, Application No 48352/12, 15 January 2015, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/437MYVF; MD v. Greece, Application No 60622/11, Judgment of 13 November 2014, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3OF4Xyd; Housein v. Greece, Application No 71825/11, Judgment of 24 October 2013, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3OFLj5d. In this last case, the Court found a violation of Article 3 combined with Article 13, due to lack of an effective remedy in the Greek context in order to control detention conditions.
[12] ECtHR, S.Z. v. Greece, Application No 66702/13, Judgment of 21 June 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/45tcBBL, para 72.
[13] ECtHR, H.T. v Germany and Greece, application no. 13337/19, 15 October 2024, paras. 104-109.
[14] For the time being there are also two pending case before the Court where an issue under the Article 5(4) ECHR has been raised, see ECtHR, M.S.J.J. v. Greece, application no. 51975/17, communicated on 5 February 2024; K.A. and others v. Greece, App. no. 43784/20, communicated on 27 November 2023.
[15] GCR/ECRE, Communication in accordance with Rule 9.2. of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers regarding the supervision of the execution of judgments and of terms of friendly settlements by the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) & the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) – GROUP OF CASES OF MD V. GREECE, Application No. 60622/11, available here.
[16] Inter alia Administrative Court of Athens, Decision No ΑΡ1784/2025.