CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s84856A0 { width:31.43pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9004C893 { width:26.56pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s510E9FF8 { width:34.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCFD4EC47 { width:28.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5516985 { width:30.88pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCE9553FA { width:34.21pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s86D3EA10 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s74863E12 { width:7.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBA033063 { width:171.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79270786 { width:175.22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 34298/18 A.J. against Greece   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   April   2022 as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak, President,   Péter Paczolay,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Alena Poláčková,   Erik Wennerström,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Davor Derenčinović, judges,   and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the above application lodged on 22 August 2018, the decision of 24 July 2018 to grant interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and stop the applicant’s return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the lack of psychosocial support provided to him, the procedure followed in respect of his return, combined with the non-appointment of a guardian, and his placement in separate accommodation from his siblings, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the decision not to include the observations submitted by the applicant in reply in the case file as belated (Rule 38 § 1); the comments submitted by Defence for Children, who were granted leave to intervene in the written procedure by the President of the Section (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3); Having deliberated, decides as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant is a stateless Palestinian and unaccompanied minor who was granted asylum in Greece in 2016. The application concerns the revocation of his refugee status and the decision to return him to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as well as the reception conditions he faced in Greece, initially as a child of a single-parent family and later as an unaccompanied minor, namely a lack of psychosocial support and separation from his siblings, who were hosted at different accommodation facilities. The applicant also complained that the procedure which had led to the revocation of his refugee status, combined with the failure to appoint a guardian for him, had been deficient. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 2005 and lives in Athens. He was represented by Mrs P. Masouridou and Mrs I. Tzeferakou, lawyers practising in Athens. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Mrs   A.   Magrippi and Mrs S. Papaioannou, legal representatives A at the State Legal Council. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5.     The applicant was born in Tulkarem in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 6.     He arrived in Greece in August 2016 with his father, H.J., his older brother A. (born in December 2002), his sister M. (born in   January   2004) and his younger brother M. (born in April 2010). They were hosted at the Elaionas Open Reception Facility for Persons Seeking International Protection in Athens (hereinafter “the Elaionas reception facility”). The applicant’s mother, O.M., is from the Philippines and lives in Tulkarem with the fifth child of the family and the applicant’s aunt, W.J., the sister of the applicant’s father. 7.     On 29 August 2016 the applicant’s father applied for asylum to the Attica Regional Asylum Service for himself and his four children. By decision no. 53148/9.9.2016 he and all his family members were granted refugee status under Article 1D of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In particular, the Asylum Service agreed that the applicant’s family were stateless Palestinians, recognised as such by UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), as descendants of Palestinian refugees forced to displace following the events of 1948. Having regard to the fact that they were in Greece, where UNRWA was not active, and the fact that objective reasons did not allow for their return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the applicant and his family were considered ipso facto refugees. On 14   September 2016 they were all granted residence permits. 8.     On 3 October 2016 the Department for Minors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Athens First-Instance Court was notified by the police in the Exarcheia district of the city that following the applicant’s father’s transfer to Aiginiteio General Hospital due to epileptic seizures, the four children were now unaccompanied. By order of the Public Prosecutor for Minors (hereinafter “the prosecutor”), acting as a temporary guardian under the law, the applicant and his siblings were taken to Penteli General Children’s Hospital, where they stayed until their father recovered and was discharged. 9 .     On 1 November 2016 a child psychiatric assessment was conducted by the competent department of child psychiatry at Penteli General Children’s Hospital, at the request of the prosecutor. The report stated that: “The mother, of Filipino origin, is pregnant with a fifth child and is still in Palestine, where she works. The children talk to her almost daily and express their wish for their family to be reunited. All the children are presentable, with good psycho-emotional development, no symptoms of any major psychopathology and appear to be well taken care of, both physically and psychologically, by their family. They have mentioned traumatic experiences in Palestine (the killing of third parties and threats against the father’s life), while they are emotionally burdened by their father’s epileptic seizures as well as by the physical weakness and confusion that accompanies them [the seizures]. ... More specifically: ... 3) A.J.... expresses fears which arise in places he has to visit alone (e.g. the bathroom), while he seems to lean a lot on his older brother for support. He has described that he often relives traumatic scenes that he experienced in Palestine.” 10.     In view of the health problems faced by the applicant’s father (epilepsy and possible excessive alcohol consumption), it was considered necessary that he undertake antiepileptic treatment, that both he and the children receive psychological support from a specialist facility, that the children be integrated into the education system, that the family be supervised by the social services of their host facility, and that the competent department investigate the possibility of family reunification as soon as possible. The report concluded that: “Given that at present Mr J. is the only guardian of the four children and given his inability to take care of [them], we propose that social services deal with the issue.” 11 .     An additional report was drawn up by the same hospital’s social services on 7 November 2016. It stated that it would be appropriate for the children to return with their father to the Elaionas reception facility, where they had been staying until the father’s admission, and for the family to remain under the supervision of social services. It also stated that the hospital’s social services had been in contact with the social worker of the Elaionas reception facility, who had agreed to provide support and supervision to the family, in collaboration with Babel, the mental health centre for migrants. 12.     Following the reports dated 1 and 7 November 2016, the applicant and his siblings returned with their father to the Elaionas reception facility, where they remained under the supervision of the social worker. 13 .     During their stay, it was established that the children’s father drank alcohol excessively, neglected his children and became violent towards them. For those reasons, on 3 May 2017 the children were taken from their father and transferred to P. and A. Kyriakou Children’s Hospital for childcare, where they received psychological support. An assessment was conducted on 31 May 2017 by the hospital psychologist concerning the four siblings. The report described that the four siblings had been deeply traumatised by their father, who had threatened and abused them. 14 .     On 31 May 2017 the National Centre for Social Solidarity (hereinafter “EKKA”) decided to place the children in a reception facility for unaccompanied minors run by the NGO Metadrasis in Plagiari, Thessaloniki. During their stay, a child psychiatric assessment was conducted on 21   September 2017 by a child psychiatrist of the mental health department at Papanikolaou General Hospital. The report stated that the applicant and his siblings had expressed the wish to be reunited with their mother and to keep in contact with a volunteer in Athens with whom they had developed an emotional bond. A stable environment was highlighted as important for their well-being. As regards the applicant specifically, it was mentioned that he did not show signs of mental illness which required hospitalisation, but that an emotional burden due to his past experiences was possible. 15 .     On 25 September 2017 the facility in which the applicant and his siblings were accommodated closed down. They returned to Athens on 28   September 2017 and stayed in P. and A. Kyriakou Children’s Hospital until suitable accommodation could be found so that they could stay together. A child psychiatric assessment carried out by the hospital on 10   October 2017 stated that the four children should stay away from their father and that during their stay in the hospital they had received psychological support and advice. They had all been traumatised by their father’s behaviour and the constant changes in their environment. As regards the applicant, he had reiterated in his consultations that their father was abusive and had expressed the wish for their mother to come to Greece. 16 .     According to the information provided by the Government, it proved impossible to have all the children accommodated in one facility as the existing facilities for unaccompanied minors were intended for those of the same sex and separated into two age groups, one for 8 to 12 year olds and the other for 12 to 18 year olds. For that reason, EKKA tried to place the siblings in reception facilities run by the same NGO so as to facilitate contact between them. On 13   December   2017 the applicant was placed in a reception facility in Pylaia, Thessaloniki, operated by the NGO Arsis. His older brother was initially accommodated in a centre run by Arsis in Tagarades, Thessaloniki, and in May 2018 was placed in SOS Children’s Villages in Athens. His younger brother was accommodated in a reception facility operated by Metadrasis in Athens. Lastly, their sister was placed provisionally in the care of a volunteer with whom she had developed an emotional bond, under the supervision of Metadrasis in Attica. At the same time, the children’s communication was facilitated through meetings organised in Athens with the help of the above-mentioned volunteer. 17 .     On 20 April 2018 the applicant’s father died. In a letter dated 8   June   2018 addressed to the prosecutor, the social worker and psychologist of the Arsis facility in which the applicant was staying stressed how important it was for the applicant to become reunited with his siblings and for all the children to become a family again, the need to find an appropriate solution for the siblings to stay together, and how the applicant’s psychological well ‑ being had been positively influenced by the volunteer providing accommodation to his sister M. The volunteer had also provided support to the applicant and his siblings and had expressed her wish to foster and accommodate all of them. The applicant’s poor psychological state was also highlighted, in particular his feelings of loneliness and vulnerability, particularly given that his three siblings were 504 km away in Athens. 18 .     In a letter dated 9 June 2018, social workers of Metadrasis at the facility at which the applicant’s younger brother was being accommodated reported to the prosecutor that, according to their information, their older brother had expressed the wish to return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and be reunited with his mother and paternal aunt. The younger brother had maintained contact with his aunt and was happy about that contact; in addition, his sister had had regular contact with their mother. In that context, the Government maintained that the prosecutor had been informed that, according to the reports by the social workers of the children’s reception facilities and their caregivers, all four siblings had expressed positive and affectionate feelings for their mother and paternal aunt. 19.     Taking the above into consideration, the prosecutor asked to have contact with the applicant’s mother. During that communication, the mother expressed her wish and her ability to take over the care of her children with the help of her late husband’s sister. 20.     In order to verify the mother’s living conditions and examine whether she was capable of taking care of her children, the prosecutor requested the assistance of the Palestinian Diplomatic Representation in Greece. Through it, it was confirmed that the applicant’s mother and aunt lived in Tulkarem, which was a safe city. The applicant’s mother worked in Tel Aviv as a home help four times a week. The aunt ran a craft workshop and was willing to provide financial support to her late brother’s family. It was also established that the mother was legally resident in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 21 .     In view of the above, the prosecutor decided that family reunification of the applicant and his siblings with his mother and aunt in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was in the best interests of the children compared to their living in institutional care in a reception facility in Greece. By returning them to their place of origin, where they had lived until September 2016, the four siblings would be more easily integrated and could continue their education. Therefore, in line with the principle of maintaining family unity, it was decided that the four siblings would be repatriated to their place of origin, in order to be reunited with their mother, their younger sister and their paternal aunt. 22 .     Through the Palestinian Diplomatic Representation in Greece, the mother sent her written consent for the return of the children, as well as authorisation by the Council of the Islamic Court in Tulkarem for the paternal aunt to accompany the children from Greece to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as the mother did not have a travel visa or any identification documents. 23 .     The lawyers who had been authorised by the prosecutor to act on behalf of the four siblings submitted the necessary asylum waivers on 17   July 2018 in order for the children to be able to retrieve their passports and travel. 24 .     The managers of the relevant reception facilities were requested to inform the children of that decision. In a document dated 20   July   2018 from the Arsis facility in which the applicant was being accommodated, the social worker informed the prosecutor that they had been indirectly informed of the return decision in respect of the applicant on 29   June 2018, without any prior notification. When they had tried to contact the Public Prosecutor’s Office, they had not learned why or who had acted on behalf of the applicant to revoke his refugee status. In addition, the decision had been so sudden that the applicant and the staff members of the facility could not properly handle the news. Two of the psychologists had had to intervene, as well as all the staff members of the facility, to help the applicant come to terms with the new situation. The siblings had communicated with each other and leaned towards a decision to refuse to return. In addition, in a telephone communication with their mother, the latter had stated that she had not known that her children had been granted refugee status and that had she known, she would not have insisted on their return. In addition, neither the staff members of the facility providing psychosocial support to the applicant nor the applicant himself had been contacted, let alone consulted about the developments, even though he was old and mature enough. The document concluded that the staff of the facility could not properly prepare the applicant in such short notice about a return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, as they had not received all the necessary information. They referred to several unanswered questions, such as what his living conditions would be there, whether social services had visited the applicant’s new place of residence and what assurances had been given in respect of the mother’s residency status. There appears to have been no reply to the questions contained in that document. 25 .     When the applicant’s siblings A. and M. were informed of the developments, they expressed negative feelings against their aunt, contacting her via Skype to ask her not to come to Greece to take them away. In view of the two children’s strong reaction, their aunt decided not to fly to Greece to accompany them. 26.     The applicant and his siblings were booked onto a flight scheduled for 24 July 2018 from Athens to Amman. By order of the prosecutor, a volunteer social worker would accompany them from the airport in Athens to the airport in Amman, where their aunt was expected to pick them up and drive them to Tulkarem.   An officer from the Palestinian Diplomatic Representation would accompany them until they were reunited with their aunt. 27.     However, after the prosecutor was informed of the siblings’ wish not to be reunited with their mother in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and their preference to stay in Greece, she withdrew her order regarding the children’s travel. She further wrote to EKKA on 24 July 2018 requesting that a reception facility be found to accommodate all the siblings together. On that day, the Public Prosecutor’s Office was notified via the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Court had issued an interim measure on 24 July 2018 prohibiting the applicant’s removal from Greece until further notice. 28.     On 31 July 2018 the prosecutor asked the Asylum Service to take the necessary steps so that the applicant and his siblings could regain their refugee status. Indeed, after the relevant instructions were issued by the Asylum Service, the applicant and his siblings were re-registered and reissued international protection applicant cards. 29 .     Following this and the relevant action taken by EKKA, the applicant and his siblings are all staying in reception facilities in Athens to facilitate their communication. More specifically, since 21 September 2018 the applicant has been staying in an Arsis facility in Athens, since 24   October 2018 his brother A. has been staying in the Praksis facility in Petralona, his brother M. remains in a reception facility run by Metadrasis in Athens, and their sister M. continues to live under the care of a foster volunteer in Athens. Moreover, the prosecutor continues to monitor the situation of all four children. 30 .     On 21 January 2019 the Asylum Service issued decision no.   1310/2019 by which the applicant, following a personal interview conducted in the presence of a guardian from Metadrasis and a lawyer, both authorised by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, was regranted refugee status. Similar decisions were issued in respect of his siblings. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Domestic law Law no. 4375/2016 31.     Law 4375/2016 transposing Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), as applicable at the time, provided as follows: Article 34 Definitions “... f. ‘refugee’ means a third-country national or a stateless person who fulfils the requirements of Article 1A of the Geneva Convention and Article 2e of Presidential Decree 141/2013; g. ‘refugee status’ means recognition by a member State of a third-country national or a stateless person as a refugee pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree 141/2013; k. ‘unaccompanied minor’ means a person under 18 years of age who arrives in Greece unaccompanied by an adult who exercises parental care on him or her in accordance with Greek legislation and for as long as such parental care has not been assigned by law and exercised in practice, or a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered Greece; l. ‘representative of an unaccompanied minor’ is the temporary or permanent guardian or person appointed by the competent Public Prosecutor for Minors or, in the absence of the latter, the First-Instance Public Prosecutor, to ensure the minor’s best interests. The task of the representative, as defined in the previous sentence, can be assigned to the legal representation of a non-profit legal entity. In the latter case, the representative of that legal entity may authorise another person to represent the minor, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.” Article 36 Access to the procedure “a. Any alien or stateless person has the right to apply for international protection. The application is submitted to the competent receiving authorities, which shall immediately proceed to register it fully. ... 6. The applicant may submit an application of behalf of his or her family members. ... 8. A minor above 15 years of age may lodge an application, independently and in person. If he or she is unaccompanied, the provisions of Article 45 of this Law shall apply. 9. An unaccompanied minor under 15 years old may lodge an application through a representative, as defined in Article 45 of this Law. 10. The representative of the minor, as well as the representative of the accommodation centre at which the minor is being hosted, in accordance with Article   19 of Presidential Decree 220/2007, may submit an application for international protection on the minor’s behalf, as long as, on the basis of an individual assessment of the personal circumstances, they consider that the minor might need international protection. The minor shall be present during the lodging of the application unless this is not possible due to force majeure .” Article 45 Applications of unaccompanied minors “1. Where an unaccompanied minor lodge an application, the competent authorities shall take action in accordance with Article 19 § 1 of Presidential Decree 220/2007 in order to appoint a guardian for the minor. The minor is immediately informed of the identity of the guardian. The guardian represents the minor, ensures that his or her rights are safeguarded during the asylum procedure and that he or she receives adequate legal assistance and representation before the competent authorities. The guardian or person exercising a particular guardianship act shall ensure that the minor is duly informed in a timely and adequate manner especially of the meaning and possible consequences of the personal interview, as well as how to be prepared for it. The guardian or person exercising a particular guardianship act is invited and may attend the minor’s interview and submit questions or make observations to facilitate the procedure. During the interview, the presence of the minor may be considered necessary, despite the presence of the guardian or person exercising a particular guardianship act. 2. The caseworkers who conduct interviews with unaccompanied minors and take relevant decisions shall have the necessary knowledge regarding the special needs of the minors and shall conduct the interview in such a way as to make it fully understandable to the applicant, taking particular account of his or her age. 3. If the guardian or person exercising a particular guardianship act is a lawyer, the applicant cannot have the benefit of free legal assistance, pursuant to Article 44 § 3, first indent. ... 7. Applications for international protection of unaccompanied minors shall always be examined under the regular procedure. 8. Ensuring the best interests of the child shall be a primary obligation when implementing the provisions of this Article.” Article 52 Personal Interview “... 7. A separate interview shall be conducted for every adult member of the family. Where minors are concerned, the personal interview shall be conducted taking into consideration their maturity and the psychological consequences of their traumatic experiences.” Presidential Decree No. 220/2007 32.     Article 19 of Presidential Decree no. 220/2007 on the transposition into Greek legislation of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, whose effect was maintained by virtue of Article 30 § 6 of Law no. 4540/2018, entitled “Unaccompanied minors”, provides as follows: “1. As far as unaccompanied minors are concerned, the competent authorities shall take the appropriate measures so as to ensure the minor’s necessary representation. To this purpose, they shall inform the Public Prosecutor for Minors or, in the absence of the latter, the locally competent First-Instance Public Prosecutor, who shall act as a temporary guardian and take the necessary steps in view of the appointment of a guardian for the minor.” Civil Code 33.     The relevant provisions of the Civil Code read as follows: Article 1532 Consequences of defective exercise of parental care “If the father or mother violates [his or her] duty to take care of the child or administer his or her property, or if he or she abusively exercises or is not unable to perform this function, the court may, at the request of the other parent, the child’s closest relatives, the public prosecutor, or of its own motion, order any appropriate measure ... In extremely urgent cases, if the conditions of the preceding paragraph are met and there is an imminent risk to the child’s physical or mental health, the public prosecutor may order any appropriate protection measure, until a decision is issued by the court, to which the case must be referred within thirty days.” Article 1589 Who is under guardianship “A minor is under guardianship where neither parent has or can exercise parental care, where the court appoints a guardian under Articles 1532 and 1535 or entrusts the exercise of parental responsibility to a third party under Articles 1513 and 1514, and in the cases stipulated in Articles 1660 and 1661.” Article 1592 Appointment of a guardian “The guardian is always appointed by the court (given guardianship). As guardian is preferably appointed one of the following persons, in the order in which they are mentioned: 1. the adult spouse of the minor 2. the natural or legal person appointed by will or declaration to the Magistrate or to the notary by the person exercising parental care at the time of the statement and at the time of his death 3. the most appropriate person according to the court’s judgment with preference for the closest relatives of the minor. A person that shall be preferred according to the preceding subparagraph shall not be appointed guardian if one of the reasons of Article 1595 exists, if he renounces the guardianship or if the interests of the minor so dictate. Until the appointment of the commissioner, the provisions of Articles 1601 and 1602 shall be applicable.” Presidential decree no. 141/2013 34.     Article 23 of Presidential Decree no. 141/2013 on the transposition into Greek legislation of Council Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on minimum standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted (recast), under the title “Maintaining family unity”, reads as follows: “1. The competent authorities shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken so that family unity is maintained.” Law no. 4540/2018 35.     Article 21 of Law no. 4540/2018 on the transposition into Greek legislation of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) provides as follows: “1. The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the competent authorities when implementing the provisions of this Law. Minors shall be ensured a standard of living adequate for their physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. In assessing the best interests of the child, the competent authorities shall in particular take due account of the family reunification possibilities, the minor’s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations, particularly where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of human trafficking, and the views of the minor in accordance with his or her age and maturity.” Accommodation applications by asylum seekers 36.     By virtue of Decision no. Π2δ/ΓΠ93510 of the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Solidarity, entitled “Assigning to EKKA the administration of accommodation applications submitted by asylum seekers”, it was decided that the administration of accommodation applications submitted by aliens and unaccompanied minors applying for asylum should be assigned to EKKA, whose role would include: (a) the collection and management of the applications of asylum seekers and unaccompanied alien minors referred to EKKA by the competent public authorities or cooperating target group reception services and social support organisations; (b) the establishment and observation of a registration, management and monitoring system for accommodation applications, whose data would be forwarded for information to the Central Authority and the Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity’s Directorate of Social Welfare and Solidarity, in accordance with the guidelines of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority; (c) the coordination of the organisations authorised by the Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity or volunteer transportation programmes, to provide assistance to the Central Authority in implementing the necessary transportation of asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors from the islands or the border area to reception centres or to Athens for temporary accommodation. Relevant Reports by National Human Rights Institutions Greek Ombudsman 37 .     The Greek Ombudsman, in its annual report of 2018 entitled “Rights of Children on the Move”, noted, inter alia , as follows: “... This new regulatory framework [Law no. 4554/2018] replaces the previous system established by P.D. 220/2007, which had proved to be dysfunctional and ineffective. The pre-existing specific legislative provision of the institution of guardianship under the Public Prosecutor’s Office had become void of content, as there was practically a substantial and complete inability of the competent Prosecutors to exercise their duties, taking into account the large number of unaccompanied minors and the workload of the competent Prosecutors. In the absence of a permanent guardian who carries out all acts of representation on a daily basis, such as registration at school and medical procedures, there had been significant gaps and problems in the daily lives of minors. This system had led to a diffusion of the responsibilities of the child protection system, as it was characterised by a fragmentation of tasks amongst various authorities, resulting in either an overlap of authorities or inadequate communication between them and a consequent compromise of the best interests, but also an inability to monitor the child’s progress ... The provision of these services, however, does not replace the need to establish a legislative framework for the special guardianship of unaccompanied minors, the appointment of guardians by the competent national authorities and the development of a system of accountability and monitoring, which are essential conditions of an effective system of guardianship ...” Greek National Commission for Human Rights 38 .     The Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR), as the independent advisory body to the State on matters pertaining to human rights protection, issued in September 2019 the Reference Report on Refugees. It noted, inter alia , as follows: “The GNCHR has already pointed out that the search for and giving the highest priority to the best interests of the child, as well as the obligation of each State to ensure the protection and care of childhood reflects the letter and spirit of a multitude of provisions of the Constitution as well as European and international texts concerning the protection of human rights and children in particular ... In particular, as regards unaccompanied minors and their protection, which is an obligation of the Greek State, GNCHR has highlighted the problems and gaps in the system as early as in 2007 with its Special Report, proposing specific measures for unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied minors by definition are deprived of an adult who exercises parental responsibility. The provision, which was first introduced in 1999 and has remained in force ever since, according to which the Public Prosecutor for Minors, and when such does not exist, the competent First-Instance Public Prosecutors, act as temporary guardians for unaccompanied minors, was deemed to be entirely problematic in practice as their role was limited by law to the appointment of a guardian and obviously did not include the exercise of daily care and supervision of the minor, for which there was a legislative and real gap in protection ...” International Material Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 39.     Article 1D of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951 provides as follows: “This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance. When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.” Guidelines on International Protection No. 13: Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees 40.     In December 2017 Guidelines HCR/GIP/17/13 on International Protection no. 13 on the applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees were published. The following passages are of particular relevance: “... 3. ... Paragraph 1 generally excludes from the protection of the 1951 Convention those Palestinian refugees who are receiving protection or assistance from UNRWA, while paragraph 2 of Article 1D operates to include those very same Palestinian refugees when that protection or assistance has ceased. Once the protection or assistance has ceased ... they are entitled ipso facto to the benefits of the 1951 Convention... 9. For the purposes of these Guidelines, the term ‘Palestinian refugees’ is used to encompass ‘Palestine refugees’, ‘displaced persons’ and ‘descendants’ or one or more of these groups, whose position has not been definitively settled in accordance with relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly. 18. Palestinian refugees ... benefit from 1951 Convention protection under Article   1D(2) when the protection or assistance of UNRWA has ceased. Read in light of its ordinary meaning, considered in context and with due regard to the object and purpose of the 1951 Convention, the phrase ‘ceased for any reason’ is not to be construed restrictively...” Convention on the Rights of the Child 41 .     The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 3 “1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures. 3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.” Article 8 “1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. 2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.” Article 9 “1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents ... 2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.” Article 12 “1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.” Article 22 “1. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties. 2. For this purpose, States Parties shall provide, as they consider appropriate, co ‑ operation in any efforts by the United Nations and other competent intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations co-operating with the United Nations to protect and assist such a child and to trace the parents or other members of the family of any refugee child in order to obtain information necessary for reunification with his or her family. In cases where no parents or other members of the family can be found, the child shall be accorded the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment for any reason, as set forth in the present Convention.” Article 24 “1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. 2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: (a) To diminish infant and child mortality; (b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care; (c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution; (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers; (e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents; (f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services. 3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. 4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.” Article 39 “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.” 42.     In General Comment no. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, published on 29   May   2013 (CRC/C/GC/14), the Committee on the Rights of the Child stated, inter alia , as follows: The child’s best interests and the right to be heard (art. 12) “43. Assessment of a child’s best interests must include respect for the child’s right to express his or her views freely and due weight given to said views in all matters affecting the child. This is clearly set out in the Committee’s general comment No. 12 which also highlights the inextricable links between articles 3, paragraph 1, and 12. The two articles have complementary roles: the first aims to realize the child’s best interests, and the second provides the methodology for hearing the views of the child or children and their inclusion in all matters affecting the child, including the assessment of his or her best interests. Article 3, paragraph 1, cannot be correctly applied if the requirements of article 12 are not met. Similarly, article 3, paragraph 1, reinforces the functionality of article 12, by facilitating the essential role of children in all decisions affecting their lives. 44. The evolving capacities of the child (art. 5) must be taken into consideration when the child’s best interests and right to be heard are at stake ... [A]s the child matures, his or her views shall have increasing weight in the assessment of his or her best interests. Babies and very young children have the same rights as all children to have their best interests assessed, even if they cannot express their views or represent themselves in the same way as older children. States must ensure appropriate arrangements, including representation, when appropriate, for the assessment of their best interests; the same applies for children who are not able or willing to express a view. 45. The Committee recalls that article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention provides for the right of the child to be heard, either directly or through a representative, in any judicial or administrative proceeding affecting him or her ... Elements to be taken into account when assessing the child’s best interests ... (a) The child’s views 53. Article 12 of the Convention provides for the right of children to express their views in every decision that affects them. Any decision that does not take into account the child’s views or does not give their views due weight according to their age and maturity, does not respect the possibility for the child or children to influence the determination of their best interests.” 43 .     The relevant parts of General Comment no. 12 on the right of the child to be heard, published on 20 July 2009 (CRC/C/GC/12) by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, read as follows: I. Introduction “2. The right of all children to be heard and taken seriously constitutes one of the fundamental values of the Convention. The