The case concerned an applicant from Iraq, D.S., who was residing in Samos Greece and complained of the living conditions during the administrative detention in the police office of Sidirokastro, the PROKEKA (detention center for foreigners pending expulsion) in Tavros and the Samos camp, as well as for an alleged lack of an effective remedy to contest the abovementioned. The applicant complained of the legality of the administrative detention and of the procedural issues related to this measure.

In fact, the applicant was detained on 11 May 2018 for illegal entry for 3 days and by decision of 14 May 2018 the police director of Samos ordered the administrative detention for the purpose of expulsion to Türkiye. The detention order was communicated the same day, and the applicant submitted an application for international protection too.

The chronological development of the facts can be presented as follows:

• 8 June 2018 – the expulsion procedure is suspended by decision of the director of the police office pending the outcome of the asylum procedure and the applicant is ordered not to the leave the Samos island;
• By decision of 6 July 2018 the registration procedure was declared close and the applicant was found as non-vulnerable
• 6 July 2018 – the applicant is detained on grounds of illegal entry and stayed in detention at the police commissariat of Sidirokastro until 20 December 2028;
• 14 December 2018 - the decision of 8 June 2-018 is annulled and the initial expulsion decision of 14 May 2018 becomes applicable;
• 21 December 2018 – the applicant is transferred to the detention center of PROKEKA in Tavros, until 15 Janvier 2019;
• 14 January 2019 – the applicant contested the detention, but the tribunal rejected her action on 16 January 2019;
• 15 January 2019 – the applicant is transferred to the Samos camp;
• 16 January 2019 – based on a request of the applicant to continue the asylum procedure, the expulsion order was suspended until the end of the procedure;
• On 17 April 2019, the applicant was transferred to a private accommodation in Samos, under the UNHCR protection.

The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5, also jointly with Article 13 of the Convention.

The court noted that the authorities ordered the detention of the applicant within the time limit provided by the law, without any indication of arbitrariness and noted that the authorities acted with due diligence because there was a decision ordering the suspension of the expulsion decision. The court stated that there was no violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention.

Then, the court noted that in the decision of 16 January 2019 when the objections of the applicant were rejected, the president of the administrative tribunal stated that the applicant risked absconding and that the detention was necessary for rapid and efficient examination of her asylum application. The court considered that the authorities took into account the applicant ‘s arguments, the fact that there were no guarantees against the risk of absconding and no alternatives to detention could have been implemented. The court concluded that the applicant benefitted of an effective remedy and that there was no violation of Article 5(4) of the Convention.

On the living conditions and the alleged violation of Article 3 of the ECHR in the police commissariat and Prokeka, the court noted that the applicant was detained in total for a period of one month and two days and that such period could not be considered as affecting the personals situation of the applicant. The allegation was rejected as manifestly unfounded.

With regard to the conditions in Samos camp, the court found a violation of Article 3. It noted that the applicant, an unaccompanied young women arrived in the camp on 11 May 2018, left at an unknown date and has been again placed in the camp between 16 January 2019 – 17 April 2019. The court noted that the applicant was deprived of any privacy and security and that despite the migratory influx, the authorities failed to ensure dignified living conditions and to take into account that the applicant was in need of psychological assistance.

The court also ruled that there was a violation of Article 13 jointly with Article 3 for the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the living conditions.