How EU Countries Undermine the Right to Liberty by Expanding the Use of Detention of Asylum Seekers upon Entry: Case Studies on Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, and Italy This report was written by Gruša Matevžič, Hungarian Helsinki Committee. The national research was conducted by the following researchers: Bulgaria: Valeria Ilareva I Foundation for Access to Rights Greece: Scientific supervision of Spyros Koulocheris. Collection and analysis of the research material by Eva Deligiannidis, Chryssa Mela and Ilias Tsoupis I Greek Council for Refugees Hungary: András Léderer and Gruša Matevžič I Hungarian Helsinki Committee Italy: Daniela Di Rado and Claudia Sforza I Italian Council for Refugees Michael Flynn and Mariette Grange from the Global Detention Project, and the European Council for Refugees and Exiles contributed to this report. The HHC would also like to thank Andrea Manta and John Trajer for their help. Proofreading by Thomas Sneddon Design by Kata Schiffer This report is published in the framework of the Red Line project, led by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC). Project partners were Foundation for Access to Rights (FAR), Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), Italian Council for Refugees (CIR), Global Detention Project (GDP) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). The project was funded by the European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM), a collaborative initiative by the Network of European Foundations. The sole responsibility for the content lies with the authors and the content may not necessarily reflect the positions of NEF, EPIM, or its Partner foundations. © Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2019. All rights reserved. This report and sections thereof may be distributed and reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed to the author and the copyright holder. Published by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Dohány utca 20. II/9., 1074 Budapest, Hungary, www.helsinki.hu 2 Executive summary 4 VI. Case law regarding “Red line” detention places 45 TABLE OF I. Introduction and methodology 7 A. Bulgaria 45 II. Increased use of detention for asylum seekers upon entry 9 Immigration detention of asylum seekers upon entry 45 “Short term” detention 46 CONTENT III. Forms of detention used upon entry 14 B. Greece 46 A. Bulgaria 12 Geographical restriction on the islands 46 Immigration detention of asylum seekers upon entry 13 Pre-RIC detention in Evros 47 “Short-term” detention 14 “Protective custody” of children - pending case at the ECtHR 48 B. Greece 15 C. Hungary 50 Detention at the Greek-Turkish land border of Evros ECtHR judgment on detention in the transit zone 50 pending transfer to RIC 15 Domestic case law on placement in the transit zones 50 Reception and Identification Centres – “hot spots” 15 Interim measures granted by the ECtHR concerning Geographical restriction on Greek islands 16 detention in the transit zones 51 “Protective custody” of children 16 Transit zones detention 17 D. Italy 52 Push-backs 17 ECtHR judgment on detention on boats 52 Pilot project on detention upon arrival 19 Unaccompanied minors in the hotspot of Taranto – pending case at the ECtHR 52 C. Hungary 20 Transit zones detention 20 VII. Conclusions and recommendations 54 D. Italy 22 Hotspots as de facto detention 22 Annex I: Observations from UN Treaty bodies 57 De facto detention on boats 23 Annex II: Global Immigration Detention Observatory Data Profiles 61 IV. Rationale behind the increased use of detention upon arrival 25 IIa: Bulgaria Profile 61 A. Bulgaria 25 Lyubimets Detention Centre (Special Home for B. Greece 26 Temporary Accommodation of Foreigners) 65 C. Hungary 28 Sofia Busmantsi Detention Centre (Special Home for D. Italy 29 Temporary Accommodation of Foreigners) 67 V. Conditions in “Red line” detention places 31 IIb: Greece Profile 69 A. Bulgaria 31 Fylakio Pre-Removal Detention Centre 72 Busmantsi and Lyubiments detention centres 31 Samos Vathy Reception and Identification Centre 73 B. Greece 34 Fylakio pre-removal center 34 IIc: Hungary Profile 75 Moria RIC 34 Roszke Transit Zone Detention Centre 78 Fylakio RIC 36 Tompa Transit Zone Detention Centre 80 C. Hungary 37 IId: Italy Profile 82 Transit zones Röszke and Tompa 37 Trapani Pre-Removal Centre 86 D. Italy 42 Lampedusa (Contrada Imbriacola) Hotspot 87 Taranto hotspot 42 Lampedusa hotspot 43 Messina hotspot 44 Trapani hotspot 45 The objective of this research was to explore how Bulgaria, Greece, detention in Greece and Italy, transit zone detention in Greece Hungary and Italy undermine the right to liberty of asylum seekers upon and Hungary, detention during pushback in Greece, detention entry. Besides thoroughly documenting the worrisome trend towards on boats in Italy and detention in pre-removal centres in Greece. de facto detention, this study aims to provide EU organs with the The common element in these forms of detention is that “de facto necessary knowledge to tackle attempts at weakening the fundamental detention” occurs when individuals are deprived of their liberty in rights of a group of people seeking refuge in Europe as a result of the absence of a detention order. Their confinement is not classified violence and turmoil in their home countries. Furthermore, it aims to as detention under domestic law and their only possibility of release raise awareness within the international community about the rampant is by leaving to another country. Additionally, asylum seekers use of de facto detention on the EU’s external borders, and the grave detained in these establishments have no procedural guarantees human rights violations which this entails. and no opportunity to seek judicial review of their detention. The research also looked into the official detention of asylum seekers The research was conducted in 2018. Research methodology included upon entry, where the legal grounds used to detain asylum seekers desk research, monitoring visits to places of detention, testimonies from remain problematic. These include “immigration detention of detained asylum seekers and interviews with relevant stakeholders. The asylum seekers upon entry” and “short-term detention” in Bulgaria, research was coordinated by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC), and a “pilot project on detention upon arrival” in Greece. with the participation of the Italian Council for Refugees (CIR), European • The increased frequency with which asylum seekers are detained Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), Foundation for Access to upon entry is motivated by a range of different practical, political, Rights (FAR), Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) and Global Detention and legal considerations. It has been used as a general response Project (GDP) as project partners. to cope with unprecedented pressure on the reception and asylum processing systems in all of the countries studied (including as a The main findings of the study are the following: response to the lack of open reception accommodation facilities in Bulgaria and Greece). Detention has also been promoted as a • The use of detention upon entry increased in 2015 with the increase security measure (e.g. against terrorism) and used as a means to in the number of migrant arrivals, but it has continued to this date prevent asylum seekers from crossing external borders in a bid to despite a significant decrease in asylum applications in Bulgaria, gain political support for the ruling government (in Bulgaria, Hungary Hungary and Italy. and Italy). Finally, as in the case of Greece and Italy, the increased • In 2017, 73.5% of asylum seekers were detained in Hungary (an rate of detention of asylum seekers at the border has also been increase from 2.9%) and 59% in Bulgaria, while the average length the product of political action at the EU level – namely the need to of detention has also increased in both countries. enforce the terms of the EU-Turkey statement – as well as pressure • In 2017 the use of migrant detention increased in Italy by 25% and exerted by the European Commission to ensure the ongoing in Greece by 75%. operation of the Dublin system. • The research revealed various practices of de facto detention, • No clear evidence confirms that detention reduces the flow such as “protective custody” of children in Greece, hot spot of arrivals as a response to an increased migratory pressure. Crossing a Red Line: How EU Countries Undermine the Right to Liberty by Expanding the Use of Detention of Asylum Seekers upon Entry 4 While the Hungarian solution of automatically detaining almost all detention, despite several statements from UN bodies, the CPT and asylum seekers for the duration of their asylum procedure reduces ECtHR Ilias and Ahmed judgement (not final). asylum seekers” secondary movement across the EU, the flagrant • Domestic litigation brought success in Bulgaria, where the infringement of their right to liberty cannot be balanced against the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the immediate release policy objective of halting such movements. Instead, the use of de of an asylum seeker from immigration detention, stating that facto detention can be counter-productive to refugee integration, the submission of an application for international protection is a and can contribute to the increase in secondary movement of statutory fact that puts an end to immigration detention. In another beneficiaries of international protection towards Western Europe. case, the Sofia City Administrative Court