THIRD SECTION
CASE OF B.F. v. GREECE
(Application no. 59816/13)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 3 (substantive) • Degrading treatment • Applicant’s detention, pending deportation, for two months and eighteen days in a Greek police station without amenities required for prolonged periods of detention
Art 13 (+ Art 3) • No substantive judicial review of the applicant’s complaints regarding detention conditions, health and adequacy of medical care • Lack of an effective remedy
Art 5 § 1 • Deprivation of liberty • Applicant’s detention pending deportation in accordance with domestic law • Good faith • No evidence of lack of diligence • Deficiencies in detention conditions did not undermine the connection between its lawful basis and its conditions of execution so as to render it arbitrary • Length of detention not excessive
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
14 October 2025
FINAL
 
14/01/2026
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of B.F. v. Greece,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Peeter Roosma, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Darian Pavli,
 Diana Kovatcheva,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 59816/13) 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 an Iranian national, Mr B.F. (“the applicant”), on 19 September 2013;
the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention and the availability of an effective remedy in that respect, the legality of his detention and the availability of judicial review thereof, and the decision to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court;
the decision not to disclose the applicant’s name;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The application concerns an Iranian national who, after unlawfully entering Greece, applied for asylum on account of his sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The applicant complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and the conditions thereof, the lack of an effective remedy in respect of those conditions, and the absence of a substantive judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention pending the examination of his asylum request. He relied on Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in Iran in 1980. He was represented by Ms E.L. Koutra, a lawyer practising in Athens. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr G. Papadaki, assessor at the State Legal Council. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. THE APPLICANT’S FIRST ARREST AND APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM
5. On 1 August 2012, the applicant entered Greece, seeking international protection on the basis of his sexual orientation. On the same day, he was arrested by officers of the Didimoticho police and border guard station for unlawfully entering the Greek territory and was placed in administrative detention. 6. On 4 August 2012, the director of the Orestiada police directorate (Διευθυντής Αστυνομικής Διεύθυνσης Ορεστιάδας) issued decision no. 9135/1-A/5093-λρδ’/4.8.2012 ordering the extension of the applicant’s detention under Article 76 § 1 (b) of Law no. 3386/2005 on the ground that there was a risk that he might abscond, as well as his deportation under Article 21 of Law no. 3907/2011. 7. On the same date, the applicant lodged an asylum application. 8. On 26 October 2012, the applicant was issued an asylum seeker’s card, valid until 21 November 2012, the date on which his personal interview was scheduled, and he was released. The Government submitted that the proof of notification, issued in a language he understood well (Farsi), stated that the applicant had been informed of his obligation to appear before the Orestiada police subdirectorate to undergo an interview. The applicant submitted that the interpretation had been conducted by a fellow detainee and had not been adequate for him to properly understand his obligations and the relevant procedural requirements. 9. On an unspecified date, the applicant moved to Athens. 10. On 1 December 2012, the director of the Orestiada police directorate issued decision no. 5401/1-A/1831-ε’ discontinuing the asylum proceedings because the applicant had failed to attend the interview and reinstating the deportation decision in accordance with Article 14 § 3 (b) of Presidential Decree no. 114/2010. The applicant submitted that he had been informed of that decision on 7 July 2013. 11. On 31 March 2013, he was baptised in the Athens Baptist Church. 12. According to a document issued on 4 July 2013 by a pathologist of Attikon University Hospital, the applicant was examined at the hospital and was diagnosed with asthma and bronchial spasms, which could become paroxysmal. He was prescribed treatment and advised to avoid humid and smoke-filled environments. THE APPLICANT’S SECOND ARREST AND NEW APPLICATION FOR ASYLUMThe applicant’s second arrest and his attempts to challenge it

13. On 7 July 2013, the applicant was arrested by officers of the Kolonos police station. 14. On 8 July 2013 the head of the Aliens Subdirectorate of Attica (Προϊστάμενος της Υποδιεύθυνσης Αλλοδαπών Αττικής) issued detention decision no. 532793/1-α΄/8.7.2013 in respect of the applicant on account of, inter alia, the lack of a valid residence permit, the discontinuation of the proceedings relating to his asylum application and the existence of the pending deportation order (decision no. 9135/1-A/5093-λρδ’/4.8.2012, see paragraph 6 above) issued under Article 76 § 1 (b) of Law no. 3386/2005 and Article 21 of Law no. 3907/2011. 15. On 9 July 2013, the applicant lodged an appeal (αίτηση θεραπείας) against the decision of the director of the Orestiada police directorate dated 1 December 2012 (see paragraph 10 above). He requested the continuation of the examination of his asylum application, arguing that his previous claim had not been examined. He explained his failure to attend the interview by reference to a combination of factors, such as financial hardship, medical issues and a lack of adequate information provided by the authorities. He stated that he was an asylum seeker and, since 1 February 2013, had had a permanent address in Athens, where he lived with his partner. He submitted an affidavit signed by his partner. 16. On 10 July 2013, he submitted objections (αντιρρήσεις) before the director of the Athens deportation department, arguing that he did not pose a flight risk, he was unlikely to offend and his continued detention was detrimental to his bronchial asthma. In support of his objections, he resubmitted the affidavit signed by his partner. 17. On 11 July 2013, the head of the Aliens Subdirectorate of Attica issued a new return decision on the grounds that the applicant lacked identity documents, that the proceedings relating to his initial asylum application had been discontinued, and that there was a pending deportation order. In the same decision, he extended his detention pending deportation in accordance with Article 76 § 1 (b) of Law no. 3386/2005 and Article 21 of Law no. 3907/2011 on the ground that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond (decision no. 532793/1-β΄/11.7.2013). 18. On 25 July 2013, the director of the Orestiada police directorate rejected his appeal (decision no. 5401/1-A/1831-θ). The applicant’s new application for asylum
19. On 7 August 2013, the applicant applied again for asylum before the Attica regional asylum office via the Kolonos police department. In support of his application, he submitted his baptism certificate and medical documentation relating to his bronchial asthma, together with an affidavit signed by his partner. He further supplemented the file with affidavits from members of his partner’s family. 20. On the same day, the director of the Aliens Subdirectorate of Attica issued a decision modifying the legal basis for the applicant’s detention and basing it instead on the applicant’s lack of travel documents, the need to verify his identity and to ensure the prompt and effective examination of his asylum application (decision no. 532793/1-ε΄/7.8.2013) in accordance with Article 12 of Presidential Decree no. 113/2013 and Article 2 of Presidential Decree no. 116/2012. The same decision suspended the applicant’s expulsion order. 21. On 6 September 2013, the asylum service registered his asylum application. His interview was scheduled for 20 September 2013. THE APPLICANT’S CHALLENGES IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITIONS OF HIS DETENTION AND DEPORTATION
22. The applicant was detained at the Kolonos police station from 7 July to 24 September 2013. On 7 August 2013, the applicant lodged objections (first set of objections, no. 21086/2013) before the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance (Διοικητικό Πρωτοδικείο Αθηνών) against the continuation of his detention and his expulsion. He argued, inter alia, that his initial application for international protection had never been examined on the merits on account of his inability to attend the interview and that he had only become aware of the discontinuation of those proceedings upon his arrest. He further pointed out that, in the meantime, he had lodged a new application for international protection. Relying on Presidential Decree no. 114/2010, issued to transpose Directive 2005/85/EC, as amended by Presidential Decree no. 113/2013, he submitted that asylum seekers were permitted to remain in the country until the completion of the administrative examination of their claim and could not be detained solely for having entered and remained unlawfully. He argued that detention was permissible only exceptionally and if alternative measures under Article 22 § 3 of Law no. 3907/2011 could not be applied, and that none of the statutory grounds justifying his detention applied in his case. He also asserted that his detention conditions were inadequate and detrimental to his health. He stated that he suffered from bronchial asthma and chronic productive cough, for which he was receiving daily treatment, and had been medically advised to avoid humid environments and exposure to smoke. He claimed that, in the overcrowded cell where he was held, most detainees smoked continuously, the atmosphere was unventilated and oppressive, and the humidity in the cell aggravated his asthma, causing persistent coughing and breathing difficulties. He relied on the medical certificate issued by Attikon University Hospital. 23. On 8 August 2013, the President of the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s objections (judgment no. 4227/2013). In her reasoning, she held that the applicant did not have a valid residence permit, employment documentation or a permanent address and had no established social ties to the country. She considered that the affidavit signed by the applicant’s partner was insufficient to constitute proof of residence, thereby concluding that he posed a flight risk. The President held that the applicant’s medical condition – bronchial asthma – was not of sufficient severity to justify his stay in the country. 24. On 27 August 2013, the applicant’s lawyer submitted a request for the expedited scheduling of his asylum interview, reiterating the same arguments and, in addition to the previous documents, submitted the applicant’s baptism certificate. 25. On 9 September 2013, the applicant lodged objections before the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance, asking for judgment no. 4227/2013 and decision no. 532793/1-β΄ to be revoked (second set of objections). He also requested his release pending the examination of his asylum claim. Relying on the Court’s case-law, he argued that both the continuation of his detention and the deportation decision had been in breach of his rights under the Convention, as his detention conditions were extremely poor and posed a serious risk to his health, given that he suffered from bronchial asthma. In that regard, he referred to overcrowding and inadequate ventilation which, coupled with the constant smoking of other detainees, aggravated his respiratory condition. He further pointed to inadequate diet, the absence of outdoor exercise, unhygienic and potentially hazardous sanitary facilities, the prevalence of communicable diseases, and insufficient access to medical and pharmaceutical care. He asserted that police stations were per se unsuitable for long-term detention on account of overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, inadequate food quality and lack of access to outdoor space or recreational activities. Additionally, the applicant argued that he should not remain in detention solely because he had filed an asylum claim and maintained that he was not a flight risk, as he had provided his personal data to the authorities and had a permanent residence with his male partner. He stated that he had strong personal and social ties in Greece, as he had been living with his Greek partner before his arrest. The applicant cited reports by international organisations acknowledging the unsuitability of police stations for long-term detention. Lastly, he argued that his case had attracted public interest and parliamentary scrutiny. The applicant resubmitted the medical certificate, the affidavit signed by his partner and his baptism certificate. He also submitted the affidavits from his partner’s relatives and friends and press articles reflecting public and parliamentary interest in his case. 26. On 11 September 2013, the Athens Administrative Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s objections (judgment no. 4956/2013). In her reasoning, the President of the Court emphasised that no new evidence had been presented and that his arguments had related solely to his asylum claim, which was deemed irrelevant to the assessment of the lawfulness of his detention. Regarding his complaints concerning detention conditions, the court found them generic and unsubstantiated, lacking sufficient supporting evidence. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
27. On 20 September 2013, the applicant was transferred to the asylum office for his interview. 28. On 23 September 2013, the applicant’s lawyer submitted a memorandum to the asylum office, requesting urgent and prioritised examination of his asylum claim, referring to the inadequate conditions of his detention. 29. On 24 September 2013, the applicant was released, as the regional asylum office did not recommend his continued detention, and director of the Aliens’ Dirtectorate of Attica ordered the suspension of his deportation pending the issuance of a decision on his application for international protection. 30. On 15 October 2013 the applicant was granted refugee status. On 30 October 2013 the applicant was notified of that decision. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
DOMESTIC LAW
31. The relevant domestic law and practice on States’ liability for the unlawful acts or omissions of public officials under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code and moral damage under Articles 57 and 932 of the Civil Code are summarised in A.F. v. Greece (no. 53709/11, §§ 22-25, 13 June 2013). 32. Articles 76 and 83 of Law no. 3386/2005 and Article 30 of Law no. 3907/2011 governing the detention of foreign nationals subject to deportation orders, as in force at the material time, are reproduced, in so far as relevant, in Barjamaj v. Greece (no. 36657/11, §§ 17-22, 2 May 2013). 33. The detention of asylum seekers was governed by Article 13 of Presidential Decree no. 114/2010, as described in A.E. v. Greece (no. 46673/10, § 23, 27 November 2014). 34. Article 23 of Presidential Decree no. 113/2013 sets out the procedural framework for the examination of subsequent applications for international protection, including the admissibility criteria, the obligation to present new substantial elements and the suspension of removal measures during the preliminary assessment stage. 35. The obligations of the authorities responsible for the detention of foreign nationals against whom an administrative deportation order has been issued, whether in detention centres or police facilities, are outlined in A.F. v. Greece (cited above, § 32). RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALCouncil of Europe

36. Following its visit to Greece in January 2011, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) published a report dated 10 January 2012 CPT/Inf (2012) 1), stating in paragraph 13 that “the conditions in which irregular migrants are held would appear to be a deliberate policy by the authorities in order to deliver a clear message that only persons with the necessary identity papers should attempt to enter Greece”. In another report dated 16 October 2014 (CPT/Inf (2014) 26), following its visit to Greece in April 2013, the Committee noted that police and border guard stations were not suitable for lengthy periods of detention and that the conditions in which most of these individuals were held amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (paragraph 35 of the report). 37. In his report (CommDH(2013)6, dated 16 April 2013) following a visit to Greece from 28 January to 1 February 2013, Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed serious concern over the systematic detention of migrants on their arrival in the country. During his visit to Athens, he encountered numerous migrants who could not be deported owing to legal or factual obstacles, yet they remained in detention. United Nations
38. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, following an official visit to Greece from 25 November to 3 December 2012 (A/HRC/23/46/Add.5, dated 19 April 2013), highlighted that irregular migrants were detained for several months in various establishments, including police stations which were clearly unsuitable for long-term detention. In general, detention conditions were found to be inappropriate in all facilities (paragraph 48 of the report). 39. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in its report (A/HRC/27/48/Add.2, dated 30 June 2014) following a visit to Greece from 21 to 31 January 2013, observed that most of the detention facilities visited were severely overcrowded and did not meet international human rights standards (paragraph 81 of the report). 40. In the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak, on his mission to Greece from 10 to 20 October 2010 (A/HRC/16/52/Add.4, dated 21 April 2011), he found the conditions of detention in police stations, criminal investigation departments, border guard stations and migration detention centres to be extremely poor throughout the country (paragraph 41 of the report). Among other concerns, he highlighted the highly insufficient reception capacity for asylum seekers, the dysfunctional asylum application system in the Athens Aliens police directorate and the systematic and prolonged detention of irregular migrants in substandard conditions. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
41. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention at the Kolonos police station had subjected him to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Admissibility
42. Referring to, among other cases, Adiele and Others v. Greece (no. 29769/13, 25 February 2016) and Papadakis and Others v. Greece (no. 34083/13, 25 February 2016), the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, namely an action for compensation under Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code. 43. The Court reiterates that Article 35 of the Convention requires only the exhaustion of available and adequate remedies that relate to the alleged violation (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 45, ECHR 2006-II). 44. The Court observes from the outset that, unlike in the cases referred to above by the Government, where the applicants’ detention had been subject to the provisions of the penitentiary code, the applicant in the present case was a foreign national, who was placed in administrative detention at the Kolonos police station pending his expulsion. In this regard, the Court reiterates its previous findings that the remedy provided by Article 105 of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code is not capable of affording an appropriate redress in such situation, as the applicable domestic legal framework consisting primarily of Presidential Decree no. 141/1991 on the competence of the Ministry of Public Order, and of Presidential Decree no. 254/2004 on the Police Code of Conduct only impose general obligations on the administration but do not guarantee foreign nationals subjective and enforceable rights before domestic courts (A.F. v. Greece, cited above, §§ 59- 61). The Court sees no reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 45. The Court further observes that the applicant repeatedly complained of poor conditions of his detention by way of objections raised in the proceedings, which he initiated on 7 August and 9 September 2013 (see paragraphs 22 and 25 above). It thus considers that the applicant alerted the domestic courts about the conditions of his detention, providing them with an opportunity to examine his conditions of detention and to remedy them, if necessary (see MD v. Greece, no. 60622/11, § 39, 13 November 2014). The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 46. It lastly notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Outcome for Article 5: no_violation