2016: ECtHR condemns Greece in 6 cases concerning the detention conditions of persons awaiting deportation

In the year 2016, six ECtHR judgments were delivered against Greece in which it was held that the conditions of detention in police stations and detention centres for migrants constituted inhuman or degrading treatment and that there was no effective judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention in terms of the conditions in which they were held.

In order for the conditions of detention to comply with the requirements of Article 3, the State must ensure that (a) individuals are detained in conditions compatible with respect for human dignity, (b) the manner and method of execution of custodial sentences do not subject persons to such an ordeal that exceeds the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention; and (c) that the health and well-being of such persons are adequately safeguarded, in particular by the provision of the necessary medical care.

Greece has been found to be in contravention of Article 3 by the same court a number of times in the past due to issues such as overcrowding, inadequate health care, hygiene and living conditions and inadequate facilities in general in its detention facilities, on the basis that living under these conditions constitutes degrading treatment. The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has underlined that the detention facilities in the police stations in the centre of Athens are totally unsuitable for the detention of persons for periods exceeding twenty-four hours. However, there are individuals who have been detained in these police stations for months. (see the Annual Special Report 2020-2021 and the CPT Report to the Greek Government following a visit in 2013).

1. In January 2016 the decision (see 1, 2) in the case of H.A. v. Greece was issued (application no. 58424/11).

The applicant, of Iranian nationality, who was detained for 5 months in the Soufli detention centre, alleged a violation of Article 3 ECHR due to the detention conditions he experienced (see more on the detention conditions in paragraph 17 of the judgement).

The ECtHR, recalling that it has previously found violations of Article 3 in several cases against Greece concerning the conditions of detention in the Soufli detention centre, and taking into account the reports of national and international organisations that visited the centre during the period in question (see more in paragraphs 22-24), held that the applicant was detained in overcrowded, unhygienic conditions, in violation of Article 3 ECHR.

In addition, the applicant complained of a violation of Article 5 para. 4 due to the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of his detention.

The ECtHR recognised the deficiencies in domestic law as regards the effectiveness of judicial review of detention for the purpose of deportation at the time of the events, stating that as domestic law was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 para. 4 at the time, held that there had been also a violation of Article 5 para. 4 of the ECHR (see more in paragraphs 58-59).

Finally, the ECtHR held that in this particular case: 

(a) there was a violation of Article 5 para. 1 as the applicant’s detention ceased to be justified due to the lack of diligence required for his immediate deportation by the Greek authorities (see paragraphs 49-54),

(b) there was no need for it to rule separately on the complaints relating to Article 13 of the Convention since it had examined the main points of law as to the effectiveness of the national remedies under Article 5 para. 4 (see paragraph 61); and 

(c) there was no need to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 62-63).

2. In February 2016 the decision in the case Amadou v Greece (application no. 37991/11) was delivered.

The applicant, a Gambian national, complained of a violation of Article 3 due to the conditions of his detention in the Fylakio and Aspropyrgos detention centres, where he was held for about four months in 2010.

The ECtHR, after recalling that it has already repeatedly found violations of Article 3 in cases brought against Greece concerning the conditions of detention in the Fylakio and Aspropyrgos detention centres in 2010 and 2011 and taking into account the findings and reports of various international organisations that visited the centres during that period, held that the applicant was detained in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions incompatible with Article 3, constituting degrading treatment.

Furthermore, the applicant, relying on Article 5 paragraph 4 of the Convention, claimed that he did not have recourse to a judicial authority which would have ruled on the lawfulness of his detention. The ECtHR, after noting that Article 76 para. 4 of Law 3386/2005 provided at the time of the events that the Administrative Court could only examine the lawfulness of detention in the light of the risk of absconding or the threat to public order, held that these deficiencies in national law rendered the judicial review of detention available to him to be in breach of Article 5 para. 4 of the ECHR.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the applicant complained of a violation of Article 3 because of the situation of absolute destitution in which he allegedly found himself when he was released. The ECtHR, recalling the systemic inadequacies concerning the housing and living conditions of asylum seekers in Greece, as established in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, concluded that as a consequence of the inaction of the Greek authorities the applicant found himself in a degrading situation contrary to Article 3 ECHR (see more in paragraphs 58-62).

3. In February 2016 the decision in the case R.T. v. Greece (Case No. 5124/11) was delivered.

The applicant, of Kurdish origin, complained about the conditions in which he was detained at the Border Guard Station of Tichero.

The ECtHR, referring to reports from Greek and international organisations, noted that the applicant had no “living space” during his detention. Recalling that this finding alone is sufficient to establish a violation of Article 3, it held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention, for approximately three months in total, subjected him to an ordeal whose intensity goes beyond the inevitable suffering inherent in imprisonment and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 3 ECHR (see more in paragraphs 52-56).

In addition, the applicant complained about the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of his detention, invoking Article 5 para. 4.

After noting that (a) the amended version of Article 76(5) of Law 3386/2005 provided for an examination of the conditions of detention at the time of the events, (b) the domestic courts have in some cases examined in depth complaints relating to the poor conditions of detention of migrants and (c) the court in the present case initially rejected the applicant’s objections and at a second stage accepted them without ever making a judgement as to the material conditions of his detention, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of Article 5, para. 4.

It is noted that the ECtHR also held that in this particular case: 

(a) the applicant’s return to Turkey without checking the status of his asylum application due to a lack of organisation and lack of coordination was indicative of the deficiencies in the Greek asylum system at the time, and therefore there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 (see more in paras. 67-75),  

(b) There was no violation of Article 5 para.1 since in the applicant’s detention cannot be regarded as not being “lawful” within the meaning of that provision (see more in paragraphs 83-89), 

(c) there was no need to consider separately the plea relating to Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, since the main legal issues as to the effectiveness of domestic remedies were examined in the light of Article 5 para. 4 (see more in paragraph 100); and 

(d) there was no need to consider whether there had been a breach of Article 5 para. 2 (see more at paragraphs 101-102).

4. In April 2016 the decision in the case Ha.A. v Greece (Case No. 58387/11) was delivered.

In his application, Ha.A., an Iraqi national, complained about the conditions in which he was detained in the Tychero detention centre for about four months.

The ECtHR noted that conditions of overcrowding and serious lack of space prevailed in the premises of the Tychero Border Guard Department, as was apparent from numerous reports by Greek and international organisations and institutions. The Court therefore held that the applicant did not have living space in accordance with the criteria laid down in the case-law of the Court, which in itself is grounds for a violation of Article 3. 

In addition, the applicant complained about the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of his detention, invoking Article 5 para. 4.

Noting that domestic law at the time of the events did not expressly provide for an examination of the lawfulness of detention as a whole and that both the first and second judgments of the Alexandroupolis Administrative Court of First Instance did not examine the above circumstances, the ECtHR held that the inadequacies of domestic law at the time of the events as regards the effectiveness of judicial review of detention for the purpose of deportation were inconsistent with the requirements of Article 5 paragraph 4 (see paragraphs 46-50 above).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the ECtHR held that in this case: 

(a) there was no violation of Article 5 para. 1 (see more in paras 36-43),

(b) there was no need to rule separately on the plea relating to Article 13, as the main issues concerning the effectiveness of the domestic remedies available were examined in the light of Article 5 para. 4 (see more in paragraph 51); and 

(c) there was no need to consider whether there had been a breach of Article 5 para. 2 (see paragraphs 52-53)

5. In June 2016 the decision in the case F.E. v Greece (Case No. 31614/11) was delivered.

The applicant, of Iranian nationality, complained about the conditions of his detention at the Soufli border guard station and the Venna detention centre, where he was held for about two months, invoking Article 3 of the ECHR.

The ECtHR, recalling that it has repeatedly found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in cases against Greece concerning the detention conditions in the Soufli and Venna detention centres and taking into account, on the one hand, the findings it had reached in the cases of E.A. v. Greece and B.M. v. Greece and, on the other hand, the findings contained in reports of international organisations that visited the centres in question during the period in question, concluded that the applicant was detained in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions.

In addition, the applicant complained of a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the ECHR. 

The ECtHR noted that at the time of the applicant’s first objections, domestic law did not expressly provide for an examination of the material conditions of his detention. The second decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance on his appeal, although it upheld his objections, did not contain a judgement on the conditions of detention, and therefore the Court found that the deficiencies in national law during the period as regards the effectiveness of judicial review of detention for the purpose of deportation were not in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 para. 4. The Court therefore found a violation of that provision.

Finally, it is noted that the ECtHR held that: 

(a) the applicant’s plea based on Articles 13 and 3 that he was at risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment because of deficiencies in the asylum procedure must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 para. 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention (see paragraphs 66-68);

(b) there was no violation of Article 5 paragraph 1 as the detention cannot be considered to have been ‘unlawful’ (see paragraphs 73-78)

(c) there was no need to rule separately on the Article 13 plea, as the main issues concerning the effectiveness of the available domestic remedies were examined in the light of Article 5 para. 4 (see paragraph 85); and 

(d) there was no need to consider whether there had been a breach of Article 5 para. 2 in the light of the Court’s findings as to the infringement of Article 5 (4) (see paragraphs 86-87).

6. In July 2016 the decision in the case Tenko v Greece (Case No 7811/15) was delivered.

The applicant, of Albanian nationality, complained of a violation of Article 3 due to the conditions under which she was detained in the premises of the Immigration Service of Kordelios in Thessaloniki.

The ECtHR noted that, irrespective of the applicant’s specific detention conditions, it has held in a number of cases (paras. 27-28) that police premises are by their very nature unsuitable for the prolonged detention of persons to be deported. Finding that the applicant was detained for a period of more than one month in the premises of the Kordelios Immigration Service, it held that there had been a violation of Article 3 ECHR.