CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s943B079B { width:33.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4D2D3397 { width:115.07pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s7B0B20EB { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s3A013CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#424242 } .s803A0776 { height:57.5pt } .s8FB2C7C8 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCEF3A785 { margin-left:31.34pt; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s78C2F550 { margin-left:31.34pt; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s8A4FD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE22134D3 { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s252CB7BA { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s346C5142 { border-top:0.75pt solid #838383; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA754500 { height:32.9pt } .sA9D756B { height:54.15pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s858CF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11.5pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA3C756B { height:54.05pt }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF M.Y. AND OTHERS v. GREECE (Applications nos. 51980/19 and 5 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 19 June 2025       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of M.Y. and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Sophie Piquet, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention to the Greek Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms O. Patsopoulou, Ms A. Dimitrakopoulou and Ms   Z. Chatzipavlou (Senior Advisors of the Legal Council of State) and Mr   G. Avdikos (Legal Representative of the Legal Council of State); the decision to give priority (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) to the applications, the decision to indicate interim measure to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in applications nos.   51980/19 (except for applicant no. 9), 55988/19, 56843/19 and 61303/19, which was subsequently lifted in applications nos. 55988/19 and 56843/19 (see Appendix for details); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 28 May 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case mainly concerns the conditions of reception and detention of the applicants, who, at the time of lodging their applications with the Court, had been unaccompanied immigrant minors in Greece. The details of their cases are provided in the Appendix. THE APPLICANTS’ ACCOUNT 2.     The applicants alleged that the Greek authorities had failed to ensure to them – as unaccompanied minors – the adequate reception conditions and assistance at the time of their arrival in Greece (application nos. 51980/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20). All applicants further submitted that the conditions of their detention in the police stations and pre-removal detention centres had been inhumane and degrading, and the Greek authorities had placed them in suitable accommodation only after they had requested the Court to apply interim measures. They also alleged that their detention had been unlawful and that they had not had access to effective judicial review of reasons for their continued detention. Some of the applicants alleged that (i)   they had not had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints about the conditions of reception and detention (application no.   51980/19) and deficiencies of identification and asylum procedures (application no. 15463/20); (ii) they had not been informed, in a language that they understood, of the reasons for their detention (applications nos.   51980/19, 55988/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20) and (iii)   reunification with their families had been hindered (application no.   61303/19). THE GOVERNMENT’S ACCOUNT 3.     The Government submitted that the applicants had arrived in Greece illegally and that at the time of their arrests some of them had not provided accurate information regarding their age or unaccompanied status. They further submitted that in Greece, underage asylum-seekers, whether accompanied or not, were considered to be a vulnerable group, and as soon as a person was identified as a minor, special guarantees were applicable in line with the relevant procedures. Lastly, they submitted that all the necessary measures, including placing the applicants in accommodation appropriate for the needs of minors had been taken within a reasonable time. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 5.     The applicants in application nos. 51980/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20 alleged that the reception conditions upon their arrival to Greece (identification and age assessment procedures, access to information and asylum procedures, educational opportunities and appointment of a guardian) had not been compatible with their status as vulnerable persons, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. 6.     All applicants also complained that their detention in police stations whether in protective custody or administrative detention and in pre-removal detention centres (“PDCs”) had been in inhuman and degrading conditions. 7.     The applicants in application no. 15463/20 complained that their living conditions in the Malakasa camp had not been compatible with Article 3. 8.     The Government submitted that at the relevant time Greece was facing an international migration crisis challenging the ability of the authorities to deal with the exceptional number of incoming migrants. They further submitted that (i) the applicants in the present case had been timely identified provided with appropriate material reception conditions in accordance with Greek law, including information notices about available procedures, interpretation services, giving a notice to a Public Prosecutor to appoint a guardian and (ii) the applicants had been kept in the police stations and PDCs for relatively short periods of time and the Greek authorities had adapted, in as much as possible and within a reasonable time‑frame those facilities to the needs of minors. Admissibility 9.     The Government argued that the applicants had lost their victim status because the authorities had taken the necessary protective measures and rectified the situations complained of. The applicants disagreed with those submissions. 10.     The Court observes that no evidence has been submitted to show that the authorities had acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and had then afforded redress for the alleged breaches of the Convention. Therefore, the Government’s objection as to the loss of victim status must be dismissed. 11.     The Government also argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3. The applicants claimed that the remedies had not been available in their particular circumstances. 12.     The Court reiterates that the Government claiming non-exhaustion must demonstrate that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible and capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, §§ 76-77, ECHR 1999-V). Having regard to the facts that no relevant national case-law examples has been provided by the Government to demonstrate effectiveness of any remedy, the Government’s objection must be dismissed. 13.     The Government further argued that since the applicants either had not duly notified the authorities of their age and personal situations, or had provided misleading information about their age or had absconded from the shelters that they had been placed in, they (i) could not claim to be victims of the alleged violations and (ii) had abused the right of individual application. The applicants disagreed and contended that they had been affected by deficiencies in the age assessment procedure for asylum-seekers and that some of them had left shelters as the living conditions had not been appropriate for their age or even dangerous and that they had been traumatised as a result of living there. The Government’s objections concern the timing of when the authorities were or ought to have been notified of the applicants’ circumstances, and as such, they are closely linked to the merits of the complaint. The Court will therefore examine them together. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It also notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Conditions of reception (application nos. 51980/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20) and conditions of detention of all applicants in police stations and PDCs 14.     The general principles concerning the living conditions of asylum‑seekers have been summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 249-64, ECHR 2011). The Court further refers to its case-law regarding the reception of unaccompanied or accompanied minors, noting the importance of bearing in mind that a child’s extreme vulnerability is the decisive factor and takes precedence over considerations relating to the status of illegal immigrant (see R.R. and Others v. Hungary , no. 36037/17, §   49, 2 March 2021; Khan v. France , no. 12267/16, § 74, 28 February 2019; N.T.P. and Others v. France , no. 68862/13, § 44, 24 May 2018; Popov v.   France , nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 91, 19 January 2012; Rahimi v.   Greece , no. 8687/08, § 87, 5 April 2011; and Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v.   Belgium , no. 41442/07, §§ 55 and 63, 19 January 2010). 15.     In so far as the reception conditions of the applicants are concerned, the Court notes that (i) some applicants were registered as unaccompanied minors with delays between one and three months (see application nos.   51980/19 (applicants nos. 1, 10 and 11); 56843/19 and 61303/19); (ii)   their dates of birth were recorded incorrectly by the Greek authorities (application nos. 51980/19 (applicants nos. 2, 7, 12, 17 and 18) and 56843/19) or (iii) access to asylum procedure had not been available to them (see   application nos. 51980/19 (applicants nos.1, 5, 10 and 11) and 15463/20). No evidence had been submitted by the Government confirming that the applicants in these cases had been provided with effective access to information about their rights and interpretation services which would enable them to communicate appropriately information about their age and personal situations or timely request asylum. The Court considers that the delays in placing the applicants in shelters for unaccompanied minors were caused by the shortcomings in the procedures for the registration and age assessment of asylum-seekers which cannot be attributed to the applicants as persons in situation of an extreme vulnerability. In other cases, even though the applicants were promptly registered as unaccompanied minors and had been placed in temporary accommodation, those facilities appear to have systematically lacked educational and recreational activities, psychological support and general support from the staff, which further exacerbated the applicants’ feeling of vulnerability and uncertainty for their future, exposed them to physical and sexual violence and, eventually, in some cases - to homelessness (see application no. 51980/19 (applicants nos. 1-9, 13-20) and 15463/20). For none of the applicants concerned had a permanent legal guardian been appointed who could closely monitor their situation and to whom they could turn for guidance. The applicants therefore remained in a precarious situation for an extended period of time having been left to look after themselves in a foreign country and to seek help from strangers, NGOs and, eventually, from the Court, despite their young age and the particular state of insecurity and vulnerability in which, as has been established by the Court, asylum-seekers have been known to live in Greece (see M.S.S. v.   Belgium and Greece , cited above, § 259, Rahimi , cited above, §§   87-94; O .R. v. Greece , no. 24650/19, §§ 67-69, 23 January 2024). 16.     As regards the conditions of detention of applicants in “protective custody” and PDCs, taking into account the Court’s well-established case ‑ law on the matter, detailed information submitted by the applicants, their vulnerability and the duration of their detention and considering that the Government have not put forward any argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case , the Court concludes that the applicants were detained in conditions incompatible with the Convention standards (see Sh.D. and Others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia , no. 14165/16, §§   48-51, 13   June 2019; H.A. and Others v. Greece , no. 19951/16, §§   166-169, 28   February 2019 ; S.Z. v. Greece , no. 66702/13, §§ 36-42, 21 June 2018 ; Amadou v. Greece , no. 37991/11, §§ 49-53, 4 February 2016; Al.   K.   v.   Greece , no. 63542/11, §§ 53-55, 11 December 2014 ; Ahmade v.   Greece , no.   50520/09, §§ 91-104, 25 September 2012 and Popov , cited above, §§   91 ‑ 103). 17.     Accordingly, having regard to the parties’ submissions, all the material in its possession and its case-law, the Court dismisses the remaining objections of the Government as to the admissibility of this complaint and finds that the treatment to which the applicants were subjected was in breach of Article   3 of the Convention. The living conditions of applicants in the Malakasa camp (application no. 15463/20) 18.     Applicants R.H. and R.A. in application no. 15463/20 complained that their living conditions in the Malakasa camp had not been compatible with Article 3 whereas the Government disputed their submissions. 19.     Having regard to the detailed information submitted by R.H. and R.A., and to the fact that the Government have failed to duly refute their submissions, and given its own findings in the case of O.R. v. Greece , cited above, § 65, regarding, in particular, the living conditions in the Malakasa camp, the Court concludes that applicants R.H. and R.A. were detained in cramped and inadequate conditions inappropriate for their age. The Court therefore considers that these applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 20.     The applicants also raised other complaints which are covered by the well ‑ established case-law of the Court. In particular, they alleged, under Article   5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, that they had not been informed of the reasons for their detention and that they had not had access to effective judicial review of reasons for their continued detention. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it and considering the fact that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading the Court to reach a different conclusion in the present case, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see   Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v.   Belgiu m , no. 13178/03, §§ 102-103, ECHR 2006-XI   and Rahimi , cited above, §§ 102-110, 114-121). OTHER COMPLAINTS 21.     Some applicants also complained about (i) the failure of the authorities to inform them, in a language that they understand, about the grounds for their detention, in breach of Article 5 § 2 (application nos.   51980/19, 55988/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15643/20); (ii) the violation of a right to family reunification under Article 8 the Convention (application no. 61303/19); (iii) lack of effective remedies for their complaints under Article 3 (application nos. 51980/19 and 15463/20). Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 22.     In applications nos. 51980/19, 55988/19, 56843/19 and 15463/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions. The Court has examined that part of the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention. 23.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT 24.     The measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 in applications nos. 51980/19 and 61303/19, as set out in the appended table ceases to have any basis. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 25.     The applicants claimed between 8,000 and 18,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Some applicants also claimed EUR 500 in legal costs and expenses (applications nos. 56843/19 and 15463/20). 26.     The Government submitted that the potential finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. The Government further submitted that no costs and expenses should be awarded to the applicants as they had not been substantiated. 27.     The Court awards the applicants EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred), each, in non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants and dismisses the remainder of the claims. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court rejects claim of the applicants for legal costs and expenses in applications nos. 56843/19 and 15463/20. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Dismisses the Government’s objection as to the applicants’ loss of victim status and non-exhaustion and joins to the merits the Government’s objections concerning the applicants’ lack of standing to bring their applications and abuse of the right of individual application; Declares admissible the complaints concerning (i) reception conditions (applications nos. 51980/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20); (ii)   conditions of detention of all applicants in the police stations and pre ‑ removal detention centres and (iii) unlawfulness of detention and lack of access to effective judicial review of reasons for their detention; Dismisses the Government’s objections concerning the applicants’ lack of standing to bring their applications and abuse of the right of individual application and holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in so far as reception conditions of the applicants in application nos. 51980/19, 56843/19, 61303/19 and 15463/20, conditions of detention of all applicants in police stations and pre-removal detention centres and the living conditions of the applicants in application no.   15463/20 in the Malakasa camp are concerned; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles   5 § 2, 8 and 13 of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each applicant EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred) euros within three months, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 June 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Sophie Piquet   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Represented by Applicant Year of Birth Nationality   Date of entry to Greece; Registered as an unaccompanied immigrant minor no/yes, on ...; Legal guardian appointed - yes/no/unknown.   Stayed/Detained at / for ...   Rule 39 applied / lifted on ...   Conditions of reception/detention 1. 51980/19 M.Y. and Others v. Greece 07/10/2019 Dimitra LINARDAKI             M.Y., 2003, Afghan 16/08/18; yes, on 03/01/19; no.   16/08/18 – decision issued on restriction of freedom by the Commander of Moria RIC; no proper age assessment procedure until 03/01/19; no information about access to international protection procedure; 16/08/18 – 03/01/19 – makeshift camp outside Moria RIC; 10/01/19 – 18/07/19 Kornilios shelter (temporary accommodation structure for minors which he had left due to poor reception conditions, including lack educational and recreational activities; lack of support from staff); 18/07/19 – 05/09/19 - homeless in Athens for over a month; 05/09/19 – 15/09/19 – Kipseli police station (protective custody for minors); 15/09/19 – 16/09/19 – Ampelokipi Security Department; 16/09/19 – 25/10/19 – Kolonos police station; 25/10/19 – 11/06/21 – shelter Estia . Duration of detention in police stations – 51 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   J.M. , 2005, Afghan 03/03/18; yes, on 03/03/18; no.   03/03/18 – identified as an unaccompanied minor but the date of birth was recorded incorrectly (2002 and not 2005 which had only later been corrected at the request of his lawyer); 03/03/18 – 18/07/18 - Samos RIC’s safe zone for five months; 18/07/18 - 18/07/19 – Kornilios shelter (temporary accommodation structure for minors which he left due to poor reception conditions including lack educational and recreational activities; lack of guardian and support from staff); 18/07/19 – 05/09/19 – homeless in Athens; 05/09/19 - Kipseli Police Station to request housing (protective custody) for 12 days, then in Ampelokipi Security Department; 16/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station; 25/10/19 - Elaionas camp safe zone; 02/10/20 - 24/03/21 - Lagadikia camp safe zone.   Duration of detention in police stations – 51 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   A.T ., 2001, Afghan   05/12/2018; yes, on 06/12/18; no .   06/12/18 - Orestiada RIC; 21/03/19 – 05/08/19 - Glavas shelter (temporary accommodation structure for unaccompanied minors which he left due to poor reception conditions, including lack educational and recreational activities; lack of guardian and support from staff). 06/09/19 (app.) or 09/09/19 (Gov.) – Omonia Security Department (protective custody) (11 or 8 days); 17/09/19 – 21/10/19 - Kolonos Police Station (4 days); 28/09/19 - Amygdaleza PDC (according to the Government’s submissions, with which the applicant disagrees); The applicant experienced respiratory problems and headaches during his detention but was not transferred to hospital. 21/10/19 – Alpina Suites (shelter for unaccompanied minors); 28/05/20 - hospitality centre for adults.   Duration of detention in police stations – 12 or 15 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/2019 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   A.I., 2003, Pakistani 2018; yes, in June 2019; no.   05/06/19 - Omonia Police Station (protective custody) and Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Detention Centre ( 25 days ); 20/06/19 – 25/06/19 - hostel for unaccompanied minors in Kalavrita (left for Athens due to poor reception conditions and sexual violence from an older minor); 06/09/19 - Omonia Security Department (protective custody) for 12 days; 17/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station; 23/10/19 - Amygdaleza PDC; 04/11/19 - 10/11/19 – Amfithea temporary shelter for unaccompanied minors which he left due to poor reception conditions, including lack of guardian, and violence from other children. 15/11/19 - Pallini Police Station; 18/11/19- Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Detention Centre; 14/01/20 - 17/05/21 Kavala camp’s safe zone. Duration of detention in police stations – 46 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   A. H. , 2004, Pakistani 2016; yes, on 16/09/19; no.   According to the applicant, he had tried eight times to access asylum office in Athens.   The Government’s submissions as to events before 16/09/19 26/11/18 - 11/12/18 - Loutraki Police Station (protective custody); 11/12/18 – 12/01/19 – shelter for unaccompanied minors, from where the applicant was transferred to another centre; 14/01/19 – 16/09/19 – Teen Spirit I Hostel, from where the applicant absconded. According to the applicant, he had left the shelter because he had been raped there.   Events as of 16/09/19: 16/09/19 - Omonia Security Department (protective custody); 17/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station; According to the applicant, on 21/10/19 he had been interviewed, without the appointment of a legal advisor or guardian, by the police in Kolonos Police Station as a potential rape victim. According to the Government, on 22/10/19 the applicant had been transferred for medical check-up at Laiko Hospital, Agia Sofia Children’s Hospital (26/09/19) and Andreas Syngros Hospital (08/11/19). 29/10/19 - Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Detention Centre. 04/11/19 - 03/07/20 - Amfithea shelter (temporary accommodation for unaccompanied minors where he was not provided with support, including for trauma from his sexual abuse). On 02/07/20 at registration of asylum claim the applicant claimed to be an adult, the next day he was required to leave the hotel. Duration of detention in police stations – 33 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   E. R., 2003, Afghan June 2018; yes, on 01/06/18; no.   01/06/18 - Moria RIC’s safe zone where he was beaten by other minors and had his arm broken; 06/07/18 – 05/09/19 – Silia shelter (temporary accommodation for minors from where the applicant was expelled due to absence for more than 48 hours. He alleged that the absence was with permission of administration); 16/09/19 (app) or 19/09/19 (Gov.) - Omonia Police Station (protective custody); 20/09/19 (app.) or 21/09/19 (Gov.) – 21/10/19 - Kolonos Police Station; 21/10/19 – 27/01/21 - Arsis shelter for unaccompanied minors.   Duration of detention in police stations – 35 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   L. F., 2002, Afghan 2019; yes, on 01 or 02/09/19; no.   15/04/19 - Kos RIC (during registration the applicant’s date of birth was registered incorrectly as “2002” instead of “2003”); 01/07/2019 - 03/09/19 - Lagadikia camp’s safe zone (temporary accommodation structure for unaccompanied minors which he left due to poor reception conditions, including lack educational and recreational activities; lack of guardian and support from staff); 02/09/19 (app.) or 04/09/19 (Gov.) Omonia Police Station / 13 days / shared a cell with adults facing criminal charges; Ampelokipi Security Department / 2 days; 20/09/19 (app.) or 16/09/19 (Gov.) transferred to Kolonos Police Station. 29/10/19 - Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Detention Centre; 04/11/19 – 29/11/19 Alpina Suites shelter from where he was removed due to participation in a fight; no referral was made for housing, and he was left homeless; 02/12/19 Koressia Border Guard Police Station (protective custody); 17/12/19 - 02/01/20 - Alexandria camp’s safe zone.   Duration of detention in police stations – 54 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   R. S., 2002, Iraqi 12/03/18; yes, on 12/03/18; no.   16/03/2018 - Lesvos RIC’s safe zone; 02/07/18 - 03/02/19; 04/02/19 - 27/08/19 – Home Project shelter for minors from where, according to the Government, he absconded, whereas the applicant alleged that he had been forced by staff to leave it, following a fight with other minors;   September 2019 The applicant’s submissions: 13/09/19 - Agios Pandeleimonas Security Department for four days (protective custody; not provided with medicine for his leg problem); in Ampelokipi Police Station for around two days and then in Kolonos Police Station for two or three days (provided with medicine with the NGO’s support). The Government’s submissions: 14/09/19 (Gov.) - Agios Pandeleimonas Police Station; 15/09/19 - Ampelokipi Police Station; 16/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station.   08/10/19 - 12/01/21 - Ritsona camp’s safe zone.   Duration of detention in police stations – 9 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   K. M., 2003 Syrian 2018; yes, on 04/05/18; no.   04/05/18 - Fylakio RIC; 27/06/18 - 10/07/18 a hostel; according to the applicant, he left from where he left due to lack of appropriate reception conditions; 07/09/18 - Amygdaleza PDC (protective custody); 03/10/18 – 03/12/18 - Lagadikia camp safe zone which the applicant left of his own; according to the applicant, he had had no legal guardian, no psychological support there; 21/12/18 - Egaleo Police Station (protective custody); 20/01/19 – 08/02/19 - Drama camp’s safe zone; according to the applicant, he had had no legal guardian, no psychological support there; 19/02/19 - Amygdaleza PDC (protective custody); 08/03/19 - 30/05/19 - temporary shelter; according to the applicant, he left from where he left due to lack of appropriate reception conditions; 16/05/19 - Dromokaitio Psychiatric Hospital of Athens for over a month (upon verbal order of the Athens Public Prosecutor for Minors); 22/06/19 - Omonia Police Station (protective custody); 26/06/19 - 15/07/19 - Amygdaleza PDC; 15/07/19 – 14/08/19 - Alexandria Imathia camp’ safe zone. Accommodated in a caravan. The applicant left the facility due to poor reception conditions, including lack educational and recreational activities; lack of guardian and support from staff. 14/08/19 -17/09/19 – homeless; 17/09/19 - Exarchia Police Station (four days). The applicant was held in a “special holding area” (Gov.) or detained in basement cell (app.); 20/09/19 - 07/10/19 - Kolonos Police Station; while there - 30/09/19 – Andreas Syngros Hospital and the General Hospital of Nikea (check-ups); 07/10/19 – 12/10/19 - Ritsona camp’s safe zone; according to the applicant, he has left the facility due to poor reception conditions, including lack educational and recreational activities; lack of guardian and support from staff. 19/12/19 – 21/01/20 - Amygdaleza PDC (protective custody); 03/02/20 - Amygdaleza PDC (protective custody); 09/06/20 - 25/07/20 - Veroia camp’s safe zone; according to the applicant, he has left the facility due to poor reception conditions. 03/08/20 - Amygdaleza PDC (protective custody); 05/10/20 - 13/10/20 - Vaiochori camp safe zone; according to the applicant, he has left the facility due to poor reception conditions 21/10/20 - Migdonia Police Station (protective custody); 06/11/20 - shelter for minors.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 11 months and 7 days   No Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 in respect of this applicant on 07/10/19.   A. A., 2003, Pakistani Aug. 2019; yes, on 24/09/19; no.   Between Aug. 2019 and 24/09/19 the applicant unsuccessfully tried to access asylum procedure in Attica Regional Asylum Office and over Skype line; 24/09/19 - the Agios Dimitrios Security Department; 24/09/19 –16/10/19 - Kolonos Police Station; 16/10/19 - 04/11/19 - Amygdaleza PDC; 04/11/19 - Agia Eleni camp’s safe zone (temporary accommodation).   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 10 days   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   N. H., 2002, Pakistani 2018; yes, on 30/09/19; unknown   until 30/09/18 – homeless; unsuccessfully tried to access asylum procedure in Katehaki Regional Asylum Office; 30/09/2019 - Kolonos Police Station; 11/10/2019 - 15/10/19 Amygdaleza PDC (section for minors); 15/10/2019 - Amygdaleza PDC (adult section) , following age assessment procedure (x-ray only), after which he was treated as an adult. According to the applicant, the age assessment procedure was not carried out in accordance with Greek law (no information about the procedure, no guardian, no record provided to him). 19/10/10 - 28/01/2020 - Korinthos PDC from where the applicant was released.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 3 months and 28 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   K. E., 2002, Egyptian July 2019 and then Sep. 2019; no; no.   11/09/19 - Nea Smirni Police Department for 6 days; 17/09/19 (app.) or 15/09/2019 (Gov.) - Ampelokipi Security Department; 19 or 20/09/2019 (app.) or 16/09/19 (Gov.) - Kolonos police station; 01/10/19 - Nea Smirni Police Station, detained with adults, after incorrectly having been registered as an adult; 03/10/19 (app) or 30/10/19 (Gov.) - Amygdaleza PDC (adult section) ; 25/10/19 - 28/11/19 Xanthi PDC.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 22 days or 1 months 18 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   E. B., 2003, Afghan 2018; yes, on 13/09/19; no.   01/10/18 – Moria camp’s safe zone for about five months; 05/03/19 – 02/09/19– Edelweiss provisional accommodation centre for unaccompanied minors from where he was expelled due to absence from the structure for over 48 hours which allegedly was with the permission of staff; no guardian, no educational or recreational activities. 02/09/19 – 13/09/19 – hosted in a house where other compatriots were staying; 13/09/19 - Agios Pandeleimonas Security Department (protective custody); 15/09/19 - Ambelokipi Security Department; 16/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station; 26/09/19 - Amygdaleza PDC (the unaccompanied minor’s section) where on 17/10/19 fire erupted; 21/10/19 - 31/10/19 Arsis shelter for unaccompanied minors from where the applicant left due to lack of appropriate reception conditions (no guardian, no educational or recreational activities, lack of support from staff).   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 7 days   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   N. R., 2003, Afghan   2018; yes, on an unknown date; no.   01/10/18 - Moria RIC; 05/03/19 – 02/09/19– Edelweiss provisional accommodation centre for unaccompanied minors from where he was expelled due to absence from the structure for over 48 hours which allegedly was with the permission of staff; no guardian, no educational or recreational activities. 02/09/19 – 13/09/19 – hosted in a house where other compatriots were staying; 13/09/19 - Agios Pandeleimonas Security Department/Polic Station (protective custody) for four days; 15/09/19 - Ambelokipi Police Station; 16/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station; 26/09/19 - Amygdaleza Pre- Removal Detention Centre unaccompanied minors’ section; 21/10/19 - 31/10/19 - Arsis shelter for unaccompanied minors from where the applicant left due to lack of appropriate reception conditions (no guardian, no educational or recreational activities, lack of support from staff).   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 7 days   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   A. H., 2003 Afghan 2018; yes, on 03/03/19; no.   27/11/2018 to 03/03/2019 - Samos RIC. 03/03/19 – 02/09/19 Edelweiss provisional accommodation centre for unaccompanied minors from where he was expelled due to absence from the structure for over 48 hours which allegedly was with the permission of staff; no guardian, no educational or recreational activities; 02/09/19 – 13/09/19 – hosted in a house where other compatriots were staying; 13/09/2019 - Agios Panteleimon Police Station/Security Department (protective custody) (4 days); 15/09/19 - Ambelokipi Police Station; 16/09/19 - Kolonos Police Station (11 days); 26/09/19 - 21/10/19 - Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Detention Centre (unaccompanied minor’s section) where on 17/10/19 fire happened in the minors’ section; 21/10/19 - 31/10/19 (app.) or 30/10/19 (Gov.) – Alpina Suites shelter for unaccompanied minors from where the applicant left due to lack of appropriate reception conditions (no guardian, no educational or recreational activities, lack of support from staff).   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 7 days   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   A. K., 2003, Bangladeshi 27/08/19; yes, on 17/09/19; no.   27/08/19 – according to the applicant, he had been homeless for first five days in Greece; slept in a park in the centre of Athens. After being threatened and feeling afraid, rented a room in a hotel in Athens for 15 days; 17/09/19 - Acropolis Police Station (even though he was identified as an unaccompanied minor by the police he was not placed in protective custody); Omonia Police Station (four hours); Kolonos Police Station (four days); 21/09/19 - Amygdaleza PDC; after his transfer the authorities changed the applicant’s year of birth from 2003 to 2000 , registering him as an adult. Considered an adult, the applicant was detained with adults for ten days in Amygdaleza . After the applicant’s lawyer intervened, it was found that the change of birth had been a mistake. The applicant was transferred to the section for minors. 25/10/19 – Amfithea shelter (a temporary accommodation structure for unaccompanied minors); 17/02/20 - transferred to reunify with his brother in the UK.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 7 days   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   M. H., 2002 Afghan 2018; yes, on 18/10/18; no.   19/10/18 - Moria RIC (during registration the applicant’s date of birth was registered incorrectly as “2000” instead of “2002” and according to the applicant, he never declared himself as an adult, contrary to the Government’s submissions); 06/12/18 - 22/02/19 - Silia shelter for unaccompanied minors from where he was expelled due to failure to comply with the regulations (after a fight erupted); the applicant became homeless; 23/02/19 - 08/03/19 - Immigration Management Police Station in Migdonia (protective custody); 08/03/19 - 12/03/19 - Thiva camp’s safe zone from where the applicant left of his own accord (Gov.); 01/04/19 -12/04/19 Immigration Management Police Station in Migdonia (protective custody); 22/04/19 - 17/07/19 - Konitsa shelter for unaccompanied minors from where he left due to lack of appropriate reception conditions (no guardian, no educational or recreational activities, lack of support from staff). Travelled to Athens and was street homeless. Robbed and beaten resulting in a leg hematoma. 18/09/19 (app.) or 19/09/19 (Gov.) - Omonia Police Station (protective custody) (3 days); then Kolonos Police Station (6 days). During his detention in Kolonos he was transferred to hospital due to his leg hematoma. 25/09/19 - Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Detention Centre (section for minors) where on 17/10/19 a fire erupted; 21/10/19 - 31/01/20 – Alpina Suites shelter for unaccompanied minors; according to the Government, the applicant left the shelter pursuant to an order issued by the prosecutor due to criminal proceedings pending against him. According to the applicant, he left the shelter due to lack of appropriate reception conditions (no guardian, no educational or recreational activities, lack of support from staff).   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 27 days Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   R. A., 2002, Afghan 03/08/18 (app) or 04/10/18 (Gov.); yes, on 28/01/19; no.   According to the applicant, he had been sleeping for six months in a wooded area outside the RIC as he has been incorrectly registered a having been born in 2000 and not 2002. 28/01/19 - Moria camp’s safe zone for ten days (after his date of birth was corrected to 2002); 28/02/19 - Silia shelter for unaccompanied minors from where he was expelled in early September 2019 due to absence from the structure for over 48 hours; according to the applicant, there had been no guardian, no educational or recreational activities in the shelter; 18/09/19 (App.) or 19/09/19 (Gov.) – 25/09/19 - Omonia Police Station (protective custody) and Kolonos Police Station; 25/09/19 - Amygdaleza PDC’s section for unaccompanied minors where on 17/10/19 fire erupted; 21/10/19 - Alpina Suites shelter for unaccompanied minors; 04/02/20 - Alexandreia Imatheias camp.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 3 days   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)     Q. A. , 2002, Pakistani 2017; 06/09/19; no.   According to the applicant, on an unknown date he had been abducted by the third parties in Thessaloniki and forced intro agricultural work in Thiva from where he had escaped; later he had been kept in Migdonia Police Station (protective custody) for 15 days; unknown – 14/08/19 – Alma hotel which he left due to lack of support and reception conditions (no guardian, no educational or recreational activities, lack of support from staff); 06/09/19 – 17/09/19 Omonia Security Department (protective custody); 17/09/19 - 01/10/19 - Kolonos Police Station (examined in the hospital by a neurologist and pathologist for some health issues who found the symptoms were psychosomatic); 01/10/19 - 07/10/19 - Amygdaleza PDC; 07/10/19 – 09/10/19 - Thiva camp’s safe zone from where the applicant left for to Athens because it the camp had been far away from his school in Moshato.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 1 month and 1 day   Rule 39 applied on 17/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)   A. A., 2002 Egyptian   29/08/19; yes, on 11/09/19; no.   11/09/19 - 17/09/19 - Nea Smirni Police Station; 17/09/19 for six days - Ambelokipi Police Station, after – for two days at Kolonos Police Station (exact dates not submitted); 02/10/19 - 14/10/19 - Amygdaleza PDC; 14/10/19 - 14/08/20 - Drama camp safe zone for where he was expelled leaving the applicant homeless.   Duration of detention in police stations and PDC – 26 days   Rule 39 applied on 10/10/19 (see more details below, after “Conditions of Detention”)         Conditions of detention in police stations   The applicants’ submissions:   Kolonos Police Station the place of detention consisted of four divided cells with no doors; detained with other minors; no natural