PP_GFR Report

ASYLUM POLICIES AND
PRACTICES IMPAIRING
ACCESS TO
INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION IN GREECE
HOW ASYLUM POLICIES
AND PRACTICES ARE
IMPAIRING ACCESS
TO INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION
Greek Forum of Refugees 2016

This report fulfills one of the major deliverables of a student-run project which
began in January 2015 and is expected to finish at the end of March 2016. The
project, entitled “Upholding Refugee and Asylum Seekers’ Rights in Greece”, is an
“Applied Policy Project” which graduate students at Central European University’s
School of Public Policy (SPP) need to complete as a requirement in order to obtain
their degree. The project focuses on policy interventions rather on pure research,
aiming to strengthen the advocacy capacity of GFR (Greek Forum of Refugees) and
its refugee communities. It is a product of the collaboration between the GFR and a
team of three graduate students currently pursuing an MPA at the School. The main
goal of this report was to assess the access to international protection of asylum
seekers in Greece.

CONTENTS
1. Introduction 7
Methodology 10
Acknowledgements 11
2. Backlog Procedure: Endless Waiting 12
2.1: Lack of Information on Ongoing Applications 14
2.2: Appeal Committees: Inactive for too Long 15
2.3: The Legal Gap between the Backlog and the New Asylum Procedure 16
3. Seeking Asylum: An Effective Right in Greece? 19

3.1: Ineffective Operationalization of Regional Asylum Offices 21
3.2: Attica Regional Asylum Office: Imbalance Between Needs and Capacities 22
3.2.1: Limited Daily Access 22
3.2.2: Arbitrary Discrimination for Access at the Katexaki Asylum Office 24
3.2.3: Implementation of the Skype Program 26
3.2.4: Lack of Interpreters 27
3.3: Ineffective Third Remedy of Asylum Applications 28

4. Obstacles to Accessing International Protection Inside
Detention Centers 32

4.1: Lack of Permanent and Official Information on the Asylum Procedure 33
4.2: Difficult Access to Asylum Application for Detainees 34
4.3: Ongoing Detention of Asylum Seekers during the Application Examination 36
5.Recommendations 38

6. Appendix 41
Interviewees and Affiliations
7. References 42

6
List of Acronyms
(CEU) Central European University
(CSO) Civil Society Organization
(EU) European Union
(GFR) Greek Forum of Refugees
(FYROM) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(IOM) International Organization for Migration
(NGO) Non Governmental Organization
(SPP) School of Public Policy
(PD) Presidential Decree
(UNHCR) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

7
1. INTRODUCTION

8
“Protecting refugees is both a moral and legal obligation.
It is not an easy task, but neither it is impossible. We must
do more to protect those who flee wars and persecution.
With political will, Europe can hold true to its values.”
NilsMuižnieks,CommissionerforHumanRights,CouncilofEurope

9
“[A person] does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognized
because he [or she] is a refugee”1
. It is the act of legal recognition, however, that changes
people’s lives and enables them to enjoy protection. The procedure is therefore an
administrative--though important--step for these persons who need international protection
and as a consequence should be effectively implemented in a timely and fair manner.
The 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees defines
the criteria for granting refugee status as the means to offer international protections to
victims of persecution based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “[e]
veryone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”2
. The European Union implements this Convention through directives for all EU member
states which design their asylum procedures and receptions by adhering to human
rights principles. In this framework, all member states shall allow and facilitate access to
international protection by complying with their international commitments and obligations.
Beneficiate from an international protection means firstly to receive documents but
induce many more crucial stakes. The asylum seekers as well as the protection recognition
documents especially gives them access to numerous rights to empower them by enabling
them to access work, accessing the health system, continuing their studies or receiving
social allowance if they are in need. As a consequence, the access to international
protection is not a symbolic legalization of a situation but the recognition of a person as
part of the society enabling them to continue their lives.
In this respect, as a result of continuous interaction with refugee communities in
Greece, the Greek Forum of Refugees (GFR) continues to observe a number of obstacles
which prevent asylum seekers in the country from accessing asylum procedures and from
receiving international protection they are entitled to under international law. Based on the
implementation of the law and the practices of the authorities, this report aims to show
the gap between the de jure situation, as defined by international human rights law and
the respective conventions, and the de facto situation on the ground in Greece as of June
2015, by giving the possibility to communities, refugees and asylum seekers to share their
experiences.
The report is focused on a non-exhaustive list of system failures and consists of three
main parts which comprise the major focus areas of our study. The first part outlines the
problems encountered by asylum seekers who are still waiting for a decision on their
asylum applications under the backlog procedure administered by the police authorities.
The second part provides a brief overview of how access to the asylum procedure under
the new Regional Asylum Offices takes place and highlights the obstacles people face
while trying to apply for asylum. Lastly, the report demonstrates how transitioning from
being detained to being granted asylum is problematic, especially because of the limited,
often scarce, and even wrong information on international protection provided to people in
need. The report concludes by providing a set of recommendations aimed at ensuring that
1. UNHCR. Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Con-
vention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Part One, Chapter one, §28.
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14.1.
1. Introduction

10
the rights of asylum seekers and refugees in Greece are respected and protected.
During our research, several other worrisome issues regarding refugees and asylum
seekers emerged. While they are not addressed in this report, GFR will ensure to draw
attention to these recurring problems faced by the refugee communities in its current as
well as future endeavors.
Methodology
The research conducted for the purposes of this report covers the period from January
2015 until June 2015 in Athens. As a consequence, the report does not refer to the most
recent events that took place during summer/autumn 2015 as well as this winter in 2016
and persist until today. GFR acknowledges the importance of the issue and is concerned
with the current situation on the Greek islands, in Athens, and at the border with FYROM
where human rights and refugee protection laws are systematically violated. The political
changes that have taken place since the research started - beginning with the resignation
of the government on August 20, 2015 - should be taken into consideration as they clearly
have had an impact on delaying the favorable plans of the residence permit based on
humanitarian grounds that would clearly improve the refugee situation in Greece. Taking into
consideration these latest events, GFR is even more concerned about the coming situation
for refugees and how the new policies will be implemented while access to international
protection in Greece, examined in this report, continues to be highly problematic.
In order to help identify and illustrate the low level of implementation of the legislation
and/or non-compliance with international and European human rights law, the research
combines raw data from interviews together with findings derived from research on the
asylum laws, procedures and policies in the country available in the secondary literature
on this topic.
First of all, a detailed overview of the international as well as European conventions
on human rights and asylum has been carried out. Then, European directives and their
implementation by the Greek authorities through laws, presidential decrees and ministerial
decisions have been studied and compared, in order to get a full comprehension of the
Greek legislation concerning asylum and refugee law and define the study area of the
research. The most relevant articles for each separate section are chosen and presented
in text boxes at the beginning of each section. This rationale is followed in order to guide
the reader through the legislation and connect this de jure situation (legislation) with the
current policies and practices, the de facto situation.
Secondly, in order to further highlight and understand the gaps between the legislation
and the human rights violations, it was necessary to base our work on interviews with
experts as well as to get authentic testimony of asylum seekers and refugees who are
the first victims of the deficiencies of the system. Each interview has been recorded and
transcribed in order to highlight the recurring problem concerning the access to asylum
procedure as well as international protection.
GFR conducted a total of 25 interviews with refugees and asylum seekers in Athens
and with local CSOs in Athens, UNHCR, national institutions and other agencies. As a way
to protect the anonymity of the refugees and asylum seekers who have been interviewed,
only their first name initials, as well as their country of origin, will appear in the report
after citation has been included on their behalf. Accordingly, all of the interview transcripts

11
have been preserved in their original wording so as to make sure that the exact thoughts,
feelings, facts and emotions of the interviewees have been fully conveyed. GFR told all
interviewees that they would receive no personal benefit for their testimonies and that the
interviews were completely voluntary and confidential.
The information in this report is drawn from a combination of the interviews and
previous reports that have already exposed the same problems. The report as such does
not disclose any novel practices and/or challenges but rather seeks to provide a clear
and authoritative, testimony-based narrative which serves to confirm that such practices
continue to take place.
Acknowledgments
This report was researched and written by Mariyana Petrova, Zoe Kostitsi-
Papastathopoulou, Chia-You Kuo, the project team of the School of Public Policy, Central
European University, Budapest; and by Alice Fevre, jurist at the Greek Forum of Refugees.
First and foremost, we are grateful for the opportunity the School of Public Policy in
Budapest has given us to work on this project, without which this report would not have
been possible. It created a free space for ideas and offered freedom to students in order to
create their own project and work on the issues and deliverables that they have previously
planned on their own, always with the constant support and advice of the SPP Faculty.
Faculty members were always willing to help and provided constant support without which
this report would not have been possible. More specifically, we are grateful for the help and
support of Thomas Skouteris who helped the team in its initial steps into legal research;
the project supervisor Wolfgang Reinicke who always found the time to meet with the
team, offered his guidance and invaluable advice; Kirsten Reinicke, who voluntary edited
the report, correcting and improving our writing in terms of language; and Jenny Choi-
Fitzpatrick who helped to form the back and bones of this project, in general, and the scope
of this research, in particular.
GFR Board members, staff and volunteers, Yonous Muhammadi, Dora Chantzi,
Ismini Karydopoulou, Andrea Borja Gonzalo, and Kate Suttle gave generously of their time
and helped to make the primary research for this report possible. Mantas Kvedaravicius
supported us in the methodology and the construction of our interview questions; Anwar
Nillufary provided invaluable assistance with translations and Viola Ternenyova and Inas
Khalill with the conduct of interviews.
We also acknowledge the willingness of all the interviewees from the Greek authorities,
the national and international agencies, and non-governmental organizations to meet with
us and answer our questions. Last but not least, we would like to express our enormous
gratitude to the asylum seekers, refugees, the Sudanese Refugees Association in Greece,
the Community of Afghan Immigrants and Refugees in Greece, and the organization
Umbrella, all of whom have agreed to share the reality of their situation and allowed us to
use their testimonies for the purposes of this report.

12
2. BACKLOG
PROCEDURE:
ENDLESS WAITING

13
2. Backlog Procedure:
Endless Waiting
Greece’s asylum system is highly problematic. This is a widely recognized fact. For
more than a decade now, the ongoing shortcomings of Greek asylum system regarding
access to the asylum process have been documented and criticized by international
bodies, organizations and jurisprudence of international courts.3
The system suffers from
a number of structural deficiencies, including -- but not limited to -- problematic access
to asylum applications, difficulties with the interview process, poor quality of decisions,
insufficient training for authorities, and inhumane detention conditions.4
Regarding the
backlog procedure, for example, “the relevant legislation was not being applied in practice”
and deficiencies were reported in terms of information, communication between authorities
and asylum seekers, training of staff, interpreters and legal aid.5
In other words, as noted
in a 2012 report by Amnesty International, at that time “Greece still [did] not have a fair and
effective asylum system, and asylum-seekers face[d] major obstacles just to register their
claims”.6
Following many complaints and condemnations7
concerning the procedure, the
Greek authorities decided to implement a new Asylum procedure. In order not to overload
the new asylum services that were provided for by Law 3907/2011, the applications that
were lodged before June 7, 2013 continue to fall within the scope of PD 114/2010.8
This
means that the reformed backlog procedure commonly known under the name ‘Allodapon’
continues working for people who applied before that date. It is also important to make
it clear that under this so-called ‘old procedure’, the responsible authority for examining
asylum applications is the Police.
Despite the fact that this procedure has been reformed to allow the authorities to finish
the examination of the pending cases, there is a number of ongoing deficiencies which are
preventing asylum seekers from benefiting from an effective and timely examination of their
asylum applications. “However it causes us serious concern that the tens of thousands
of outstanding applications remain in the Police jurisdiction [...] These gaps give rise to
legitimate concerns as regards access to the asylum procedure in the other areas of the
country and places of detention.”9
“People have been waiting for 10 /15 years for a decision under the old system.
Today at the Afghan community, we still have people with a pink card that arrived in the
2000s.” 10
3. “The Campaign for the access to Asylum in Attica Area”, last modified June 20, 2013, http://www.aiti-
ma.gr/aitima_files/REPORT_Campaign_on_access_to_asylum_in_Attica_ENG.pdf .
4. “Greek Migration Policy and the Response to Irregular Migrants and Asylum Seekers” (Caitlin Katsiafi-
cas: 2014) Bridging Europe EU Migration Policy Working Paper , No. 15.
5. ECHR Decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece, 21 January 2011 (Application no. 30696/09).
6. “Greece: the End of the Road for Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Migrants”, (Amnesty International:
2012, p. 2) accessed January 2016 http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/greece-the-end-of-the-
road-for-refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants.
7. ECHR Decision RU v. Greece, 7June 2011 (Application no. 2237/08).
8. Article 34 of the Presidential Decree No.113 of June 14, 2013.
9. “The Campaign for the Access to Asylum”, last modified June 20, 2013. http://www.aitima.gr/aitima_
files/REPORT_Campaign_on_access_to_asylum_in_Attica_ENG.pdf .
10. N. from Afghanistan. Interview by Alice Fever and Ismini Karydopoylou. Tape Recording. Athens,
Septeber 22, 2015.

14
2.1: Lack of Information on Ongoing Applications
More problems arise from the contact of asylum seekers with the police authorities.
The applicants under Allodapon should be in contact with the police in order to renew their
asylum applicant card or for any kind of information concerning their pending procedure.
It appears that it is really difficult to carry out these tasks which are approached in an
arbitrary way.
“Problems arising at the Greek Ombudsman concern the contact with the police
authorities because when they renew their asylum applicant’s card or if they want to apply
for travel documents, if they want to have information regarding the procedure they have
to come in contact with the police authorities”. 11
“So I took the three months and I went there and the work permit I didn’t. That’s the
history how I got the three months. Before that I got one month, sometimes four weeks,
sometimes two weeks, and sometimes four days. I went, I took the card, I gave them the
card and they said come in four days. I came after four days and they gave me two days
or weeks (… ). It was changing all the time according to the persons”.12
This problem is amplified because a significant number of applicants have been
waiting for around 10 years to get a final decision on their application. Unfortunately, the
continuation of the backlog procedure has not resolved the limitless period of waiting that
as a consequence is placing their lives on hold.
“We have quite a lot of complaints regarding the old procedure about the delay of the
examination for the people that are waiting for more than 5, 6, 7 years for a decision” .13
“I applied here in 2009. Until now it is six years. So I can’t study, I can’t work, I can’t
do anything. I can’t even rent a house”.14
“I am waiting for the decision of my appeal interview since December 2014, when I
go to Allodapon they tell me they cannot find my file, I went at the appeal committee at
Galatsi and they told me that Allodapon has my file”.15
11. Voutsinou, Maria. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape Recording. Athens, April 20, 2015.
12. A.from Sudan.Interview by Alice Fevre, and Viola Tenenvova. Tape Recording. Athens, April 21, 2015.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. T. from Afghanistan. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape Recording. Athens, October 12, 2015.

15
2.2: Appeal Committees: Inactive for Too Long
In 2012, 20 Appeals Committees were created to preside over close to 40,000 cases
that were pending. All first degree applications had been examined and only the second
degree applications16
are still pending under the backlog procedure. Notwithstanding such
measures, the number of Appeals Committees appointed is unbalanced in view of the
amount of pending cases. Therefore, despite the effectiveness of the Appeal Committees,
applicants still need to wait for a long time in order to get a final decision.
“The ministry created 20 Appeal Committees, that is a lot, they were effective until
December 2014, however their effectiveness can be considered as limited because of
the huge number of application that are pending.” 17
The committees for the pending appeals were not working between December 2014
and May 2015, and no decree has been issued in order to appoint the new members of
these committees. During this time, “it remained around 20 000 appeals that were pending,
appeal committees members hadn’t been appointed and the cases no examined were
still pending.” 18
As a consequence, the Appeals Committees working under the backlog procedure
were not effective and the pending applications were not examined. This situation left
people who were already waiting for years in an uncertain situation.
“My actual situation is that I got rejected from the police after the first interview. And
they are supposed to send me the committee, there is a committee there, to meet with me
and do another interview. So now three years now I am waiting for them.”19
This suspension of the Appeals Committee’s work has now been rectified and they
started being effective again in May 2015. However this lack of punctuality and stability
slows down the procedure even further and affects yet again applicants that have been
stuck in the old procedure for many years.
“I am waiting to have an interview for my appeal since a long time, but I know a lot of
people that are waiting so I know I have to be patient even if I worry about the decision, if
they will say yes or no….” 20
16. First degree applications refer to the applications that have been submitted for first time (the first in-
terview stage). Second degree refers to the applications that were rejected at the first interview and have
thus become appeal cases.
18. Ibid.
19. A. from Sudan. Interview by Alice Fevre, and Viola Tenenvova. Tape Recording. Athens, April 21,2015.
20. K. from Guinea. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape Recording. Athens, October 9, 2015.

16
2.3: The Legal Gap between the Backlog and the New
Asylum Procedure
“This system is really unfair, some have decision in 4 months at the new asylum
service and some are more than 10 years here without document, why these people
cannot go to the new services and have a decision in 4 months?” 21
“‘Subsequent application’ is any application for international protection submitted
after a final negative decision.”
Article 2, par. u, of the Presidential Decree number 114 of November 22, 2010.
“An international protection applicant who lodges a subsequent application
must present the final decision of his/her previous application. The competent
examination authorities shall examine the details of the subsequent application in
conjunction with the data of the initial application and/or the appeal.”
Article 23, par. 1, of the Presidential Decree number 113 of June 14, 2013.
“Subsequent applications submitted after 7 June 2013, shall be examined by the
authorities foreseen in Part A of this P.D. and in accordance with the procedure
provided in this Part.”
Article 34 of the Presidential Decree number 113 of June 14, 2013.
“’Competent Examination Authorities of the international protection application’
or ‘competent examination authorities’ are the Regional Asylum Offices and the
independent units of the Regional Asylum Offices.”
Article 2 (n.) of the Presidential Decree number 113 of June 14, 2013.
In the case when a first degree application has been rejected by theAllodapon authority
or the procedure has been interrupted, the applicant is authorized by two Presidential
Decrees (114 of November 22, 2010 and 113 of June 14, 2014) to access the new asylum
procedure by applying for a so called “subsequent application”.
This development was welcomed as it was seen as “equalizing” the rights of asylum
seekers as well as providing a solution to the problems of the old procedure. However,
access to this new subsequent application does not happen automatically; rather the
applicants have to stick to the old one do not have a choice and have to wait until their
application under the old procedure is examined, rejected, suspended or interrupted by the
Allodapon authority.
21. A. from Afghanistan. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape Recording. Athens, November 5, 2015.

17
“If you are still in this procedure there is no way out, to choose the one or the other, I
mean you should wait till your application is gonna be examined, rejected, suspended or
interrupted in order to go to the other procedure system.” 22
This lapse of time between the two procedures can be considered as a ”legal gap”,
because the people who were already waiting for a decision for several years under
the Allodapon procedure need to resort to the new asylum procedure as a first asylum
application. Instead of having priority in accessing the new asylum procedure, those
concerned have to wait in the queue and follow the procedure as if it were the first time
they wanted to apply for international protection. It has been explained to us by Vassilis
Papadopoulos, General Secretary of Population and Social Cohesion in the Ministry of
Interior and Administrative Reconstruction that no priority could be given to the subsequent
application because it would be a reproduction of the old system. The same problem that
occurred under Allodapon would occur in the new asylum service: all rejected cases will
apply to the new services and will recreate the problems that existed under the backlog
procedure. This gap between the two procedures forces those who were under the old
procedure to wait again for an unspecified period of time. Because they do not possess an
asylum seeker card, they are at risk of being arrested, and in the worst case scenario, they
could be deported. It seems basically to be a start from zero.
Moreover, when these people finally access the new asylum offices, they have to wait
and see if they are entitled to apply for the new procedure. If successful, an asylum seeker
card is issued and they then have to wait for the examination of their application.
“There are some problems for that procedure because if you apply for this late
application, you should wait that the new asylum service is gonna examine if you can
apply for this procedure and after that you’re going to get you application card and you
are going to wait for the examination.”23
“One year ago I went to Katehaki and tried to apply. The people told me I am supposed
to have the file closed in Allodapon, but Allodapon is not closing the file.” 24
“And you know everybody who left Allodapon and is going to the new asylum service;
it takes like one year until Allodapon they say yes we closed the file.” 25
“We cannot transfer our files to Katehaki… It is like they want to punish us.” 26
According to Vassilis Papadopoulos, the backlog procedure should be terminated and
only the new procedure should be in operation for asylum applications.27
He informed us
that a presidential decree initiated by the government would be issued in order to create
the possibility for Allodapon applicants whose requests have been pending for over five
23. Ibid.
24. B. from Sudan. Interview by Alice Fevre, and Viola Tenenvova. Tape Recording. Athens, April 21,2015.
25. A. from Sudan. Interview by Alice Fevre, and Viola Tenenvova. Tape Recording. Athens, April 21,2015.
26. A. Asylum seeker from Ethiopia
27. Papadopoulos, Vassilis. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, July 7, 2015.

18
years to have their application for asylum waived and to be granted a residence permit on
humanitarian grounds. This initiative would reduce the number of pending requests by at
least half and as a consequence would reduce and thus speed up the work of the appeal
committees, which should bring the final end of the Allodapon procedure closer.
This presidential decree seems to be an appropriate solution: around 70% of the
requests under Allodapon were for asylum protection as it was the only way to legally
stay in Greece. The government will give the opportunity to those migrants not entitled to
international protection to get a residence permit thereby freeing up theAppeals Committees
to examine international protection applications.
However, the political events of July 2015 and the resignation of the government
on August 20, 2015 have put the presidential decree on hold. Moreover, by its opinion
number 120/2015, the State Council28
declared the draft of the presidential decree not legal
arguing that the Law 3907/2011 does not provide the responsible government agencies
to adopt “provisions which accord the possibility of granting massive and indeterminate
number of persons with residence status on humanitarian grounds without defining criteria
and conditions related to the scheme and which change essentially those determined by
the conditions for granting permanent provisions of that regime.” As a consequence, the
presidential decree as written shall be improved and modified in order to be compatible
with the Law 3907/2011.
28. State council of the Hellenic Democracy, opinion Δ120/2015 issued on the 17/9/2015.

19
3. SEEKING ASYLUM: AN
EFFECTIVE RIGHT IN
GREECE?

20
3. Seeking Asylum:
an Effective Right in Greece?
In light of the aforementioned deficiencies under Allodapon, Law 3907/2011 which
provides for the establishment of a new asylum service in Greece--along with Presidential
Decree 113/2013--serves as a building block of what is referred to as ”the new asylum
procedure”. This new system has been created in order to guarantee the proper application
of international obligations arising from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees and to ensure Greece’s compliance with European refugee law and human
rights standards.
Accordingtoourresearchandinterviews,despitethefactthatthenewasylumprocedure
seems to be much better suited to adequately respond to the needs of asylum seekers,
there is a large number of structural changes which need to be urgently undertaken.
“The Greek state should take measures to guarantee the rights of people that need
international protection and the asylum procedure regarding the reception conditions and
regarding basic rights of people that are entering Greece.” 29
Moreover, in a recent press release, the European Commission, expressed its
concerns over “serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum system, notably with regard to the
material reception conditions to applicants for international protection, particularly those
“It is hereby established an autonomous Service within the Ministry of Citizen
Protection, entitled “Asylum Service”, directly dependent on the Minister and
with a territorial competence on the entire country. This Service operates as a
Directorate and has the mission of applying the legislation on asylum and other
forms of international protection for aliens and stateless persons, as well as
contributing to the development and the formulation of the national asylum policy.”
Article 1 (1) of Law 3907/2011 of January 26, 2011.
“Purpose of this Presidential Decree is to adjust the procedure for granting the
status of refugee or of subsidiary protection beneficiary to aliens or stateless
individuals, as applied in conformity with the Council Directive 2005/85/EC “on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing
refugee status” (L326/13.12.2005) in the framework applied by Law 3907/2011.”
Article 1 of the Presidential Decree number 113 of June 13, 2013.

21
with special reception needs and vulnerable persons, and structural flaws in the functioning
of the guardianship system or legal representation of all unaccompanied minors during
the asylum procedure. (...) While progress has been made, there is still a structural and
persistent lack of reception capacity, independent of the large and unexpected influxes
which have recently been observed.”30
3.1: Ineffective Operationalization of Regional Asylum
Offices
By creating a new asylum procedure, Law 3907/2011 provides for the operationalization
of asylum services and offices in 13 strategic geographical places in Greece. However, at
the time of writing this report and over four years after the introduction of the Law, these
offices have yet to be fully established. There are currently 6 regional asylum offices open
in Greece which have the capacity to register the asylum applications from asylum seekers
from both in and outside detention facilities. The offices which started operating in 2013 are
located in the Attica region (Athens), North Evros (Filakio), South Evros (Alexandroupoli),
and the island of Lesvos. The Regional Asylum Office on Rhodes Island opened in 2014
and the office in Thessaloniki opened in the summer of 2015. In addition, 3 asylum units
tasked with registering asylum applications have also been established in the areas of
Amygdaleza, Xanthi and Patras, but they are responsible for registering, examining and
delivering decisions on applications submitted by third-country nationals or stateless
persons only in detention centers and other custodial facilities.
ThefailuretoestablishasmanyregionalasylumofficesasprovidedforinLaw3907/2011,
which directly affects third country nationals31
in need of international protection who are
attempting to access the asylum system, has two harmful consequences. First, there have
been no centers established in major cities and strategic geographical locations, such as
Volos and Ioannina. Third country nationals as well as unaccompanied minors living all
over Greece in their own homes or in shelters are obliged to travel sometimes extremely
long distances in order to reach a regional asylum office and submit their application.
Not only do these trips come at a huge cost, but they also need to be undertaken several
times: first for the registration; later on for the interview; and finally for the delivering of the
decision. Individuals and organizations in charge of shelters struggle to cover the cost of
30. European Commission, More Responsibility In Managing The Refugee Crisis: European Commission
Adopts 40 Infringement Decisions To Make European Asylum System Work, Web. July 2015, http://euro-
pa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5699_en.htm
31. ‘Third country nationals’ is a term used in the context of migration, which refers to individuals who
are in transit and/or applying for visas and/or international international protection but have not yet been
granted any kind of status.
“The Asylum Service is composed of the Central Service and the Regional Asylum
Offices (...) When the present law enters into force, Regional Asylum Offices will
be set up in Attica, Thessaloniki, Alexandroupolis, Orestiada, Ioannina, Volos,
Patras, Heraklion, Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros and Rhodes....”
Article 1§3, Law 3907/2011 of January 26, 2011.

22
trips for all hosted people who need to travel to apply for asylum. The unaffordable cost
obliges some of the asylum seekers to renounce their right to seek asylum despite the fact
that they are entitled to it under international and European human rights law.
“The priority should be taken in order to establish effective regional offices in order
to cover the need for asylum procedure because if the applicants should be transferred
to or should travel to Athens in order to apply for asylum, it is difficult (…) it would be
essential to have regional offices everywhere in Greece.” 32
“You need to have asylum services in all over Greece in order for all to have the
possibility and the opportunity to apply for Asylum wherever they are.” 33
Second, the failure to open and manage regional asylum offices represents an
incomplete implementation of the law and has forced the majority of refugees to stay and
apply in the Regional Asylum Office in Athens. This, however, has created an excessive
workload for the office in Attica (see below), to which the majority of the people in need of
international protection is referred. There is simply not enough staff to receive everybody
and to register their claims within a reasonable amount of time. No doubt the opening of all
the offices would relieve the Attica regional asylum office and make it easier for applicants.
3.2: Appeal Committees: Inactive for Too Long
In the spring of 2015, access to several RAOs was increasingly impaired and , the
Regional Asylum Office in Attica announced the temporary suspension of its services due
to lack of personnel.34
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 below outline the circumstances under
which this decision was made and present the practices that impaired access to the asylum
offices as until the 25th of May.
As a result of the impairment, only the skype program was left.Moreover, it was
also announced that only tasks that can be conducted over Skype, such as scheduled
appointments for registering asylum applications, interviews and other administrative
actions, will continue to take place. The problems with the implementation of the Skype
program are elaborated in section 3.2.3, but it should be kept in mind that the program
provides services only to a small percentage of those affected, because of lack of internet
access and limited personnel, and that is of great concern as the Regional Asylum Office
in Attica is receiving the majority of applications altogether.
33. Kaldani, Maria. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 22, 2015
34. Hellenic Republic Ministry of Interior, Asylum Service. Notification of the 25/05/2015

23
3.2.1:Daily access remains limited
“The new system did not change anything. As 5 or 6 people were entering under
Allodapon, today around 6 persons enter every day. The only good change is that you
will get a decision in 6/7 months.” 35
During our research, approximately 300 people in need of international protection (the
average number depends on refugee inflows) were waiting in front of the Attica regional
asylum office to apply for asylum, to renew their asylum seeker card, or to receive the
decision on their application. However, the reception capacities of this office are quite
limited and the imbalance between the demand and the space creates long queues in
front of as well as inside the Asylum Office, keeping scores of people every day away from
starting an application process. According to the Attica Public Relations and Information
Office, only 30 people can be received per day in addition to 10 Syrian nationals falling
under the fast track procedure. This temporary fast track procedure has been implemented
in order to respond to the large inflows of Syrian nationals fleeing the war. It was explained
to us that the situation is really difficult for the staff of the Attica asylum services due to the
imbalance of the staff and the people waiting outside.
These queues already existed under the old procedure and the new one was specifically
designed with the purpose of avoiding their recurrence. More than being undignified,
this endless waiting is exposing people to the risk of being arrested, detained and even
deported during the entire period they are trying to seek asylum. As refugees, these people
need to be allowed to enter into the administrative process and to receive the respective
documentation so that their stay in the country gets authorized during the examination of
their application. This situation has been denounced from the beginning of the new asylum
services operation: “There are many people who wait for days, weeks or even months to
be recorded, arriving at the evening and several vulnerable ones among them as minors,
sick, single parents, victims of torture, etc. The lack of an adequate mechanism to identify
vulnerable cases, lack of adequate interpretation in all languages, are major obstacles for
the request.”36
This situation has been qualified as “unpleasant memories of the previous
system operated by the Attica Aliens Directorate (Petrou Ralli).”37
The inability to access the asylum procedure brings about even more serious
ramifications bearing in mind the fact that, according to the Regional Asylum Office of
Attica, a person needs between 10 and 60 days to gain access to the asylum office.
35. N. from Afghanistan. Interview by Alice Fevre, and Ismini Karydopoylou. Tape Recording. Athens,
September 22, 2015.
36. First findings from the new asylum service operations”, campaign for the access to asylum,December
19, 2013, accessed July 2015, http://asylum-campaign.blogspot.gr/2013/12/blog-post_19.html
37. Ibid.
“Applicants are allowed to remain in the country until the conclusion of the
administrative procedure for the examination of their application and they shall
not be removed in any way.”
Article 5, Presidential Decree 113 of June 14, 2013

24
Nonetheless, people we interviewed told us that they have been waiting for more than 3
months to access the offices and finally submit their application.
“When we came in Athens, we tried to leave the country but unfortunately just my wife
managed to leave the country, now she is in Germany, now she is an Asylum Seeker there.
Me I am here with the children. She has sent all the paper to us, it is now 4 months that I
am almost every day in front of the Asylum office to ask for Asylum but it is impossible to
enter the office, so still now I do not have a card. It is a very bad situation; the children are
asking for their mum, it is really difficult…Mostly even at 3 or 4 am I am going to the queue
with my children but they never took us”.38
This highly alarming situation results from a real imbalance between the demand and
the offer of services. The capacity to assist all people who wish to apply for asylum is
obviously inadequate. As already mentioned, the lack of a full operationalization of the
asylum offices creates problems for both asylum seekers wishing to lodge their applications
and employees having to provide services to an overwhelmingly high number of people
each day, creating a constantly increasing workload at the asylum office in Katehaki as
explained in greater detail in the next section.39
According to the Regional Asylum Office in
Attica , having more colleagues would enable these services to serve the applicants more
efficiently and to contribute to a more fair and efficient asylum process.
“But you need more staff would to solve it, there is no others solutions, all the others
solutions they are discriminated people, with the healthy, the women, the children… All
the other solutions somehow will have someone that will lose at the end.”40
38. I. from Afghanistan. Interview by Alice Fevre, Yonous Muhammadi, and Inas Khalil . Tape Recording.
Athens, April 4, 2015.
39. The Katehaki Asylum Office is located at Katehaki Street, in Athens, Greece and it is the only asylum
office in the city of Athens and almost the one for all Greece as well. While the Attica Regional Asylum
Office is the new office, under the new procedure, for the whole region of Attica.

25
3.2.2: Arbitrary Selection for Access at the Katehaki
Asylum Office
We have observed that not all the interpreters are working regularly and therefore
the asylum office has had to deliver a schedule based on the availability of interpreters. In
this way, applicants can be informed of which days they can visit the offices and use the
services of the respective interpreters. In light of the approximately 300 people waiting in
line in front of the office each day, a choice has to be made as to who will in fact be granted
access to the services. Bearing this in mind, the language spoken by the people wishing
to seek asylum is the only official and objective criteria that has been determined by the
Asylum Office as a means to choose who will enter the Katehaki offices on a given day.
However, since the number of people who satisfy the language criterion are too many,
another criterion is needed in order to determine who gets access in light of the limited
capacity of the offices.
According to Article 35 of the Presidential Decree 113 of June 14, 2013, it is clear that
priority access should be given to those considered vulnerable. Law 3907/2011 of January
26, 2011 describes different categories of vulnerable groups, as shown above. However,
there are major inconsistencies and as there is no official criteria for deciding who is most
vulnerable, the employees in the Katehaki Asylum Office need to make the choice. “Then
who is the most vulnerable, you cannot make this choice.” 41
In an attempt to overcome
the lack of an official policy, the offices have tried to come up with their own informal
regulations.
However, we were unable to ascertain how the judgment call of ”who is vulnerable” is
“The competent examination authorities may prioritize the applications for
international protection which concern: a. Individuals belonging to vulnerable
groups…”
Article 35 §13-3(a) of the Presidential Decree 113 of June 14, 2013.
“‘Applicants belonging to vulnerable groups’ are applicants who belong to the
categories specified in Article 11, par. 2 of Law 3907/2011.”
Article 2(y) of the Presidential Decree 113 of June 14, 2013.
“(…) For the purposes of the present, vulnerable groups are: (a.) unaccompanied
minors, (b.) people with disabilities or suffering from incurable diseases, (c.)
elderly persons, (d.) women in pregnancy or having recently given birth, (e.) single
parents with minor children, (f.) victims of torture, rape or other serious forms
of psychological, physical or sexual violence or exploitation and, (g.) victims of
trafficking.”
Article 11§2 of the law 3907/2011 of January 26, 2011.

26
made. The only answer given is that it is up to the authorities at the door to choose whom
they will take in. This random way seems to be considered by the asylum services as the
fairest way to avoid reproducing the failures of the old system and discrimination.
This lack of an official policy concerning access to the offices, along with the
inconsistencies in defining vulnerability and priority, produce a highly unfavorable and
even unfair environment. For instance, a large family with two elderly parents and many
children finally succeeded in entering the asylum office after 3 months of trying, despite the
fact that they could be considered as belonging to vulnerable groups and therefore should
have been given priority access. Another issue that has been raised is that the vulnerability
criteria, combined with the limited number of possible entries per day, renders access
for people who are not considered vulnerable almost impossible. “For the young people,
healthy and single men, the opportunities are less to get in the asylum service.” 42
All these factors combine to create a “lottery” system that obliges people who did not
get chosen from the queue to come back another day, hoping to be randomly chosen. In
the meantime, these people are in Greece without papers.
3.2.3: Implementation of the Skype Program
In an attempt to find a sustainable solution to the problem of accessing the asylum
office in person, a Skype program permitting refugees to make appointments online with
the Asylum Office of Attica was established. A schedule has been developed outlining days
and times when interpreters are available to answer calls. In theory, third country nationals
can book their first appointment for registration by providing their name, passport number,
and a photo through a Skype phone call. Aware that it can be difficult for people to find
access to a computer and use the Internet, CSOs responded accordingly by giving asylum
seekers the opportunity to use a computer with internet access in their offices.
This initiative was welcomed as a good alternative. First, this program was considered
a sustainable solution to an unacceptable queue of people outside the offices in Katehaki.
It also reduces the extremely stressful risk of people being arrested while going to the
asylum offices while possessing no papers. By getting an appointment through Skype,
people would not need to go to the asylum office every day and would only have to visit it
on the day of their appointment. This initiative could also be seen as a solution for those
living far from Athens who wish to apply for asylum.
”This would reduce the queue because they will all have an appointment for the
registration, it will roll somehow. The people will know “I have this appointment, I will not
need to go again and again, I have this appointment and I will wait for this appointment
and I will do it. It will be easier for them also; it will be less stress […].” 43
“Our director is willing to expand this program in order to reduce the queue and
avoid the people to come many times in the queue without being authorized to enter.” 44
42. Ibid.
43. Kaldani, Maria. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 22, 2015.
44. Petraki, Eleni. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, May 12, 2015.

27
Unfortunately, however, the Skype program has also gradually turned out to be
dysfunctional. Users and CSOs have pointed to several failures in the implementation
of this program which render it almost inaccessible. The Campaign for Asylum states that
there is a “highly problematic access to asylum in [the] Attica [office] since the system by
Skype serves an infinitesimal percentage of the persons concerned and the needs are
dramatic and are constantly increasing due to increased refugee flows in Greece”.45
The Skype program is working only on certain days of the week and for a few hours
only, in accordance with the available interpreters (see below). The schedule is limited
and does not offer an immediate opportunity to third country nationals to contact an
operator in order to get an appointment. Adding to the frequent and constant changes of
the “interpretations offered schedule”, the possibility for actual communication is further
diminished as explained in the next section.
Finally, despite all the attempts to provide an adequate response to the situation,
the lack of operators available for longer periods of time means that the program does
not respond effectively to the access problem. The number of requests far exceeds the
capacities of the program and creates once again a lottery of who will get the chance to
have their request for an appointment granted by the asylum services.
“It is just mathematics, it is a lottery and again you should try again and again since
you have one operator, you need at least several operators behind one Skype address to
take the list.” 46
3.2.4: Lack of Interpreters
Interpreters are key actors in the asylum procedure. However, since they are not
hired by the Regional Asylum Office of Attica, but are working at the offices under various
temporary programs, their availability is unpredictable and inconsistent, thus creating
further delays for the asylum applications and sometimes postponing the procedure for
months.
All interpreters are provided by the organization Metadrasi through contracts signed
45. “First findings from the new asylum service operations”, Campaign For the Access to Asylum, De-
cember 19, 2013. Accessed July 2015. http://asylum-campaign.blogspot.gr/2013/12/blog-post_19.html
“They shall be provided interpretation services in order to submit their application
and present their case to the competent receiving and examination authorities
and to conduct the interview or oral hearing at all stages of the procedure, if
appropriate communication cannot be ensured without such services . The
interpretation costs are borne by the State.”
Article 8, Presidential Decree 113, of June 14, 2013.

28
directly with the state. These contracts cover a limited period of time, and therefore the
asylum office cannot have a stable staff of interpreters that will allow for a consistent and
regular registration of asylum applications. The presence of required interpreters (or lack
thereof) at any given time is therefore dependent upon the operative program run by the
state at that time. Unfortunately, this brings a number of negative ramifications for the
people trying to access the asylum service.
“The programs that are financed are unfortunately limited and when they end, the
people employed through this program are no longer working there. Which means that
there is no stable personnel, especially concerning the interpreters that are part of these
programs, the asylum office often lack of interpreters.”47
Under these conditions, the asylum office of Attica produced a leaflet to inform people
which days interpreters would be available. This initiative allows people to know which day
they should go to the asylum office in order to be able to use the services it provides.
“We need to have interpreters all the year, not in the program. When the money (the
funding) from the program stops and then you don’t have translators, if you don’t have
translators you cannot do this kind of job, even if you have one hundred officers, you need
interpreters, they need to have them and then you can roll it somehow.” 48
However, it was brought to our attention that there is a lack of interpreters for some
languages. The lack of interpreters at the Regional Asylum Office of Attica is slowing down
the entire procedure and prevents migrants from applying for asylum. Migrants for whose
language there is a lack of interpreters, for example Somalis, are forced to stay in the
country illegally and are exposed to arrest simply because they cannot start the application
as long as there is no interpreter provided. As a result, they remain with an undocumented
status for months because at the same time there is not any type of documentation that
could be given to them in order to verify that they are on the “waiting list” and have initiated
their application. Their undocumented status also raises the possibilities for involuntary
return by the authorities due to the lack of documents.
“Metadrasi is trying to provide us all the interpreters for the needed languages, we
have for example a lot of Arabic interpreters but very few Somali interpreters while there
are a lot of Somalis that want to ask for asylum. It is difficult because the interpreters
should talk the language needed as well as Greek in order to do the translation.” 49

29
“Member States shall ensure that applicants for asylum have the right to an
effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against the following: (a) a decision
taken on their application for asylum, including a decision […]. ”
Article 39 Council Directive 2005/85/EC of December 1, 2005.
“International protection applicants shall have the right to lodge, before the
competent court of justice, an application for annulment, (…), against the decisions
taken pursuant to the provisions of this Presidential Decree. This possibility, the
deadline, as well as the competent court shall be explicitly stated in the body of
the decision.”
Article 28, Presidential Decree number 113 of June 14, 2013.
3.3: Ineffective Third Remedy of Asylum Applications
The law provides for legal action as a last remedy after a rejection by the appeal
authorities or the assignation of a status with which the person does not agree with. This
remedy takes place before an administrative court, contrary to the asylum procedure that
is undertaken by the asylum offices. Nonetheless, asylum seekers wishing to use this
service need to be able to make substantial financial commitments; the recourse’s cost is
extremely high for refugees and this makes access to third remedy close to impossible,
preventing asylum seekers from using all services and procedures to which they have a
legal right.
“I will never go because I do not have money neither my lawyer, so I will never be
able to go on court, I need a small voithia50
, I need help as a refugee”.51
In order to access the third remedy program, asylum seekers need to be represented
by a lawyer and pay for the judicial fees. However, most asylum seekers live in great
poverty and therefore cannot exercise the right to have their application reviewed by the
administrative court.
“You can’t ask from people that are living in the street or really poor, even if they are
not, the amount of money you need in order to fight against this decision is so huge, so I
don’t think that this is an effective remedy.” 52
In the past, some CSOs implemented programs which helped asylum seekers cover
all the costs that had to be met in order to access the procedure. However, despite their
efforts, the CSOs could not bring all cases before the courts due to the high cost of the
50. Greek word for ‘help’. The interviewee used the Greek word.
51. O. from Democratic Republic of the Congo. Interview by Alice Fevre, and Viola Tenenvova. Tape
Recording. Athens, May 6, 2015.
52. Giannakaki, Eva. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 15, 2015.

30
procedure and the consequent financial restrictions they face, as their budgets cannot
cover all cases. As a consequence, the access to the judicial action is limited and only a
few asylum seekers could access the third remedy procedure.
“You need to go for the cases that you are sure they are going to work, you need to
make a choice; you don’t have a budget for all.” 53
Currently, due to the high cost of this procedure, no CSOs have the financial capacity
to run a program supporting access to the third remedy. “Most of the people stay with the
appeal decision”54
namely for the majority of the asylum seekers who received a negative
answer from the appeal committee, the procedure stopped there.
“They asked me to go on court but to go on court you need a lawyer, you cannot go
alone, lawyers need to be with you in order to defend you. I took my final decision to go
in front of the court with my lawyer, she told me that still she cannot help because her
organization did not have the money”.55
Nonetheless, an alternative exists to help asylum seekers access the third remedy
procedure in the form of free legal assistance which allows people to apply for financial
support for judicial procedures. The application must first be accepted by the competent
court in order for an applicant to benefit from the support of a lawyer and be helped with
judicial fees.
An important factor which has to be considered is that the legal aid program is open
to all people in need of financial support in order to access the courts, and not just to
refugees per se. Consequently, there is no distinction or different funding, just one fund for
all types of judicial cases. As a result, it is quite difficult to actually benefit from the program:
the requirements are strict; not everyone who qualifies and applies is successful, and the
available funds are severely limited.
“If you make a research to the decision from Greek court, you can see few cases with
asylum seekers, because there are not quite a lot of people that they can afford a legal
procedure before the court and the cases that have been before the court by NGOs is
really few.” 56
54. Giannakaki, Eva. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 15, 2015.
55. O. from Democratic Republic of the Congo. Interview by Alice Fevre, and Viola Tenenvova. Tape
Recording. Athens, May 6, 2015.
56. Voutsinou, Maria. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 20, 2015.
“In case of pursuing judicial protection, the applicant may receive free legal
assistance according to the provisions of Law 3226/2004 (O.G. A 24), as
applicable.”
Article 10, par. 2 of the Presidential Decree number 113 of June 14, 2013.

31
As a result of the above ineffective third remedy increases the chances of deportation
in two ways. First, after receiving a negative decision from the appeal authorities, the person
whose application has been dismissed receives an order to leave the Greek territory. This
order includes information on the third remedy program and the procedure that should be
followed by those wishing to access it. In practice, the order to leave the Greek territory
does not get suspended during the judicial procedure for third remedy. This means that
even if someone resorts to this third remedy, they are still at risk of being deported as a
result of the decision issued by the appeal authorities. In order to avoid deportation during
the procedure, the applicant should make a request for the suspension of the decision in
front of the court. Unfortunately, we have been informed of cases where even when the
third remedy application was pending, some people were deported while they were still
waiting for a decision.
“There is no suspension; you should ask for suspension of the decision otherwise
there is the risk that the applicant could be arrested and deported/returned.” 57
“There were annulations application still pending but the application of suspension
has been rejected so there were people that were deported.” 58
Second, people who cannot afford the costs of accessing the third remedy program
are left without papers, which in the event of arrest, is a reason for deportation. In such a
case, they will be returned without having benefited from the whole range of legal options
provided for by refugee legislation, including third remedy, to which they are inarguably
entitled.
“My life is also at risk here because I am without papers, I still want to find a help in
order to continue the procedure and my folder to be examined again to be recognized as
refugee.” 59
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. O. from Democratic Republic of Congo. Interview by Alice Fevre and Viola Tenenvova. Tape Record-
ing. Athens, May 6, 2015.

32
4. OBSTACLES TO
ACCESSING
INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION INSIDE
DETENTION CENTERS

33
4. Obstacles to Accessing
International Protection Inside
Detention Centers
“Being an asylum seeker has to do with your legal status; of course to be an asylum
seeker you need to have the opportunity to apply for asylum.” 60
4.1: Deficiencies in the Provision of Information on the
Asylum Procedure
There are two types of problems when it comes to the provision of information on the
asylum procedure inside detention centers: first, it is not provided by an official authority,
and second, it is not provided on a permanent basis. While it has come to our attention
that there are posters which are provided by the IOM and which concern the voluntarily
return program, it is essential that other information regarding all rights of detainees is also
provided.
“There was not an organized information, so in general this was a big issue for the
people because they were very uncertain about what is going to happen to them, they
were insecure, this caused them like stress, anxiety, especially… because they have no
clue of what will happen to them when they will be freed.” 61
“They should be informed regarding the right for asylum, but in practice this is limited,
there is no pamphlet that is given to them.” 62
“I have not seen such information on the other hand I have seen posters and there
was information actively provided by IOM on the voluntarily return program.” 63
The information provided by NGOs is inside detention centers concerning international
protection is informal. First, it is teams of psychologists, social workers and interpreters
working in detention centers who are providing information when it comes to the right
to international protection. These services are outside the scope of expertise of these
professionals who do not work in detention centers on a permanent basis. In certain cases
it is the police personnel working inside detention centers who, together with interpreters,
provide information on the asylum procedure and administrative status of detainees. The
provision of these services is not official; it takes place on a completely arbitrary basis.
60. Kotsioni, Ioanna. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, June 15, 2015.
61. Ibid.
62. Dafnis, Giorgos. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 15, 2015.
63. Kotsioni, Ioanna. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, June 15, 2015

34
“These teams of psychologists, social workers and interpreters, are maybe used for
other purposes too, may be used for the police to inform them regarding their administrative
status so they could be informed either by the police or by these teams about the right to
asylum but this is not explicitly providing by guidelines or specific pamphlets, handbooks.”
64
While well-intended to fill the information gap, these informal practices/initiatives
cannot be considered effective and reliable ways to provide information. Access to official
information should be available to all detainees and at all times by individuals that are
explicitly trained for that.
4.2: Difficult Access to the Asylum Application for
Detainees
According to Article 16.3.b above, third country nationals, held in administrative
detention not only have the right to apply for asylum, but their application should also
have priority vis a vis asylum seekers who lodge application outside detention facilities.
However, as already mentioned in part 4.1, the asylum application process becomes even
less accessible due to the lack of official information. “The time of recording the detainees’
asylum claims must be accelerated.” 65
To shorten the stay in detention centers, a new electronic program, Alkioni, has been
put into place so that detention center authorities can register the applications of everyone
who wishes to apply for international protection. Once the application is lodged, it is then
sent to the respective regional asylum office to be processed so that the asylum seekers
can have their first interviews. Unfortunately though, the effectiveness of the Alkioni
program is rather limited and those detainees who are willing to lodge an application face
65. “Conditions of detention and access to the asylum procedure”, campaign for the access for asylum,
October 20, 2014, accessed July 2015, http://asylum-campaign.blogspot.gr/2014/10/blog-post.html .
“Any alien or stateless person has the right to apply for international protection.
The competent receiving authorities shall ensure the exercise of the right to
submit an application for international protection (…). If an applicant is subject
to the process of First Reception or is a detainee, the competent services of
First Reception or detention shall make every effort immediately to inform
and refer him /her to the territorially competent examination authority ,within the
lawful deadlines of par.5, Article 11 of Law 3907/2011.”
Article 4.1, Presidential Decree 113/2013 of June 14, 2013.
“The competent examination authorities may prioritize the examination of
applications for international protection which concern: a. Individuals belonging
to vulnerable groups, or b. Individuals who apply while in detention (…)”
Article 16.3.b, Presidential Decree 113/2013 of June 14, 2013.

35
the challenge of prolonging their stay in detention due to the long duration of the process. For
those detainees who manage to register, the organizational delay that takes place between the
expression of the will to apply for asylum and the actual lodging of the asylum request is so
long that it prolongs their stay in detention. This of course does not happen in detention centers
where asylum services exist and therefore the Alkioni program is not necessary. Consequently,
even after the registrations of will on the Alkioni program, there is a long delay before applicants
are received before the competent authorities.
“The process takes too long, which means that they are detained for several months, and
something that we came across several times, and nothing was happening with their asylum
requests.” 66
“It’s quite difficult until you are going to be able to apply for it and to be recorded and to
be called in front of the competent asylum office.” 67
In this regard, the failure of the Alkioni program can be mainly attributed to the lack of
specialized employees.
“We had complaints regarding that: “I want to apply for asylum but I don’t have access to
the procedure or the police authorities have not recorded my application.” 68
The asylum application of detainees should be given priority. Nonetheless, according to
the data of the asylum service, the examination of asylum seekers in detention was only a little
faster than the examination of the free asylum seekers’ applications.69
This suggests that the
policy of giving priority to detainees is not working in practice. As a result, detainees remain in
detention for longer than they are supposed to as they have to remain detained. This process
can last for several months. The Attica asylum office informed us that access by detainees
registered under Alkioni for asylum procedure, is prioritized; however, this is done with very little
effect.70
“The examination of asylum seekers under detention was slightly shorter than examination
of a free asylum seeker, but it was not such a difference that could be regarded as fast
priority.” 71
66. Kotsioni, Ioanna.Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, June 15, 2015.
67. Voutsinou Maria.Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, April 20, 2015.
68. Ibid.
69. It is important to highlight that not all asylum seekers are detained. Under Presidential Decree 113/2013 an
asylum seeker may be detained (1) for determination of his or her identity or origin; (2) if he or she threatens
national security or public order, according to the reasoned judgment of the police authority; or (3) detention is
considered necessary for the prompt and effective completion of the asylum application (Presidential Decree
114/2010, article 13(2)). An asylum application can be lodged by any asylum seeker, no matter whether they
are detained or not. As of Article 16.3.b, Presidential Decree 13/2013 examinations of applications by detainees
shall be prioritized.

36
4.3: Ongoing Detention of Asylum Seekers during the
Application Examination
After the first stage interview, an opinion is issued by the asylum office stating whether
or not the asylum seeker should remain detained.
Based on the data that has been collected, very few release orders are issued by the
asylum offices. More precisely, in February 2015 there were 179 recommendations for
continuation of detention and only 7 release orders. These are only recommendations and
the final decision is taken by the police authorities. Nonetheless, these recommendations
could influence the decision made when it comes to the length of detention periods. As
Ioanna Kotsioni from Doctors without Borders stated, “the majority was not released.
From my experience and the numbers I have seen from organizations that register this
information, a recommendation for the release for the majority of the people did not take
place.”72
According to UNHCR, 900 people applied for asylum while being detained in pre-
removal centers and these 900 people have since been granted protection status at the
first instance in July 2014.73
It is alarming that those people were detained in facilities
while they were about to be deported. According to Art.5, par.1 of PD 113,“[a}pplicants are
allowed to remain in the country until the conclusion of the administrative procedure for
the examination of their application and they shall not be removed in any way.” 74
Asylum
seekers therefore cannot be deported; however, this legal provision only applies to those
who have applied for asylum status officially and therefore have the legal status of an
asylum seeker.75
Those who have not had the opportunity to ask for asylum may therefore
be deported.
UNHCR also documented cases of detainees who were waiting to be registered as
asylum seekers for over a year.76
This means that some people cannot access the asylum
procedure at the time that they wish to. Being able to apply for asylum while in detention is
72. Kotsioni, Ioanna. Interview by Alice Fevre. Tape recording. Athens, June 15, 2015.
73. “Greece as a country of Asylum” (UNHCR: 2014), accessed July 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/4b-
4c7c329.html .
74. Presidential Decree 113 of June 14, 2013. Article 5, par.1.
75. An individual is not considered an asylum seeker from a legal perspective unless they have made an
application asking for asylum.
76. “Greece as a country of Asylum” (UNHCR: 2014), accessed July 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/4b-
4c7c329.html.
“The detention order is taken by the respective Police Director and, in the cases
of the General Police Directorates of Attica and Thessaloniki, by the competent
Police Director for aliens’ issues and shall include a complete and comprehensive
reasoning. In cases (a) and (c) of paragraph 2 of this Article the detention order
is taken upon a proposal of the Head of the respective examination authority. In
case (b) the Head of the competent Regional Asylum Office or the Director of the
Appeals Authority is informed, who shall ensure for the prioritized examination of
the application or the appeal.”
Article 12.4, Presidential Decree 113/2013 of June 14, 2013.

37
not fully effective and is exposing people in need of international protection to long periods
of detention and in some cases involuntary return to their country of origin, despite the
fact they may be entitled to the legal status of refugee. Unfortunately, all this means that,
as the current practice is, most asylum seekers remain in detention until the final decision
on their asylum claim is reached, either they have applied for asylum while in detention or
upon arrival.77
77. “Invisible Suffering” (Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF): 2013), accessed January 2016 http://www.msf.
org/sites/msf.org/files/invisible_suffering.pdf

38
5. RECOMMENDATIONS

39
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Greek Authorities
Concerning the Pursuit of the Backlog Asylum Procedure:
● To take all necessary measures to complete and bring to a full conclusion all applica-
tions that are still under the Allodapon authority.
● To ensure better access to information concerning applications as well as better com-
munication between Allodapon authorities and applicants concerning procedures and
decisions.
● To ensure the effectiveness of the appeals committee in order to bring all pending cas-
es under the Allodapon authority to a timely closure.
● To give every person currently under the backlog procedure priority in accessing the
new asylum procedure.
● To elaborate an effective alternative giving people under the backlog procedure a
choice to continue their asylum request or to obtain a residence permit on humanitarian
grounds.
Concerning the Access to the Asylum Services and Procedure:
● To implement its legal obligation by establishing all asylum offices provided by Law
3907/2011.
● To ensure a minimum and consistent number of staff needed in every asylum office. In
this way, delays on the decisions of asylum applications will be at least limited and ideally
minimized.
● To ensure an effective access to asylum offices for the applicants in the shortest period
of time possible.
● To invest all sufficient means to make the Skype program efficient and reliable in every
language for all applicants.
● To ensure an effective third remedy accessible for all applicants by offering legal aid or
by financially supporting CSOs for special programs.

40
Concerning the Asylum Information and Procedure inside Detention Centers:
● To ensure and make available comprehensive and comprehensible information
concerning the access to international protection procedure and rights for all detainees.
● To ensure an effective access to the international protection process within detention
centers.
● To prioritize and apply a fast track procedure concerning the examination of the
detainees’ applications.

41
6. Appendix:
Interviewees and Affiliations
Avraam, Anastasia. Fundamental Rights Specialist - Hellenic Coast Guard Authority
Dafnis, Giorgos. Associate Legal Expert-UNHCR
Giannakaki, Eva. Political Scientist
Kaldani, Maria. Social Worker- Arsis
Kotsioni, Ioanna. Advisor on Migration Issues in Greece- Doctors Without Borders
Mantanika, Regina. Researcher Expert on Asylum Issues
Papadopoulos, Vassilis. General Secretariat of population and Social Cohesion, Ministry
of Interior and Administrative Reconstruction
Petraki, Eleni. Public Relations and Information Office- Greek Asylum Service
Varouxakis, Dimitrios. Coordinator for the International Center for Poseidon Operation
Hellenic Coast Guard Authority
Voutsinou, Maria. Senior Investigator Expert- The Greek Ombudsman

42
7. References
“The Campaign for the access to Asylum in Attica Area”, last modified June 20, 2013.
http://www.aitima.gr/aitima_files/REPORT_Campaign_on_access_to_asylum_
in_Attica_ENG.pdf.
“Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951
Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”, (UNHCR:
1992). Accessed July 2015. http://www.unhcr.org/4d93528a9.pdf .
“Greece as a country of Asylum”, (UNHCR: 2014). Accessed July 2015. http://www.
unhcr.org/4b4c7c329.html .
“Greek Migration Policy and the Response to Irregular Migrants and Asylum Seekers”
(Caitlin Katsiaficas: 2014) Bridging Europe EU Migration Policy Working Paper , No.
15. Accessed January 2016. http://www.bridgingeurope.net/
uploads/8/1/7/1/8171506/wp15_eu_migration_greekcase_katsiaficas_december.pdf
“Greece: the End of the Road for Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Migrants”, (Amnesty
International: 2012). Accessed January 2016. http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/
reports/greece-the-end-of-the-road-for-refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants .
“First findings from the new asylum service operations”, campaign for the access to
asylum, December 19, 2013. Accessed July 2015.http://asylum-campaign.blogspot.
gr/2013/12/blog-post_19.html
“Conditions of detention and access to the asylum procedure”, campaign for the access
for asylum, October 20, 2014. Accessed July 2015. http://asylum-campaign.
blogspot.gr/2014/10/blog-post.html
“Invisible Suffering” (Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF): 2013). Accessed January 2016.
http://www.msf.org/sites/msf.org/files/invisible_suffering.pdf
Legislation
International
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on December 10,1948.
Convention relating to the status of refugees, adopted by a special United Nations
conference on July 28, 1951.

43
European
European Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the Council of Europe on
November 4, 1950.
European Union Charter of Fundamental rights, drafted by the European Convention
and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the
Council of Ministers and the European Commission. Entries into force of the
Treaty of Lisbon on December 1st,2009.
Council directive 2005/85/EC of December 1st 2005 on minimum standards on
procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
Greek
Law 3907 of January 26, 2011, on the establishment of an Asylum Service and a First
Reception Service, transposition into Greek legislation of the provisions of
Directive 2008/115/EC “on common standards and procedures in Member States
for returning illegally staying third-country nationals” and other provisions. Official
Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, Volume A’,Number 7.
Presidential Decree 113 of June 13 2013, on the establishment of a single procedure
for granting the status of refugee or of subsidiary protection beneficiary to aliens
or to stateless individuals in conformity with Council Directive 2005/85/EC “on
minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing
refugee status” (L326/13.12.2005) and other provisions.
Presidential Decree number 114 of November 22 2010, on the establishment of a single
procedure for granting the status of refugee or of beneficiary of subsidiary
protection to aliens or to stateless persons in conformity with Council Directive
2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting
and withdrawing refugee status (L 326/13.12.2005).
Jurisprudence
ECHR Decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece, January 21, 2011 (Application no.
30696/09)
ECHR Decision RU v. Greece, June 7, 2011 (Application no. 2237/08)

44
This report is published by the Greek Forum of Refugees, in association with
the School of Public Policy, Central European University.
First published in 2016 by the Greek Forum of Refugees, in Greece.
All rights reserved. This publication is a copyright, but it may be reproduced
by any method as long as the purpose is to help refugees and is offered free
of charge. Sale or any fee for it is strictly prohibited.

PP_GFR Report

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to PP_GFR Report

PP_GFR Report