Background

1. In response to the challenges faced by the Greek authorities in dealing with asylum seekers arriving from Turkey, the EU began providing financial support for reception centres in what are referred to as the ‘hotspots’ (on the Greek islands of Samos, Kos, Leros, Chios and Lesvos). At the beginning of 2020, the European Commission started discussions with the Greek authorities on how to improve reception conditions at the hotspots through the potential creation of EU-funded Multi-Purpose Reception and Identification Centres (MPRICs), which would deal with identification, first reception and pre-removal detention of and for asylum seekers.

2. In September 2020, after a fire destroyed the Moria reception centre on the island of Lesvos, the Commission created the ’Task Force for migration management’ to “improve conditions and end overcrowding in migrant reception centres on the Greek islands and to enhance migration and asylum processes in Greece”.[1]

3. In November 2020, the Commission signed a grant agreement with Greece to provide a EUR 121 million grant for the MPRICs on Samos, Kos, and Leros.[2] In April 2021, the grant agreement was amended to include additional funding (EUR 155 million) for the MPRICs on Chios and Lesvos.[3] The grant agreement was further amended in September 2021, and in February 2022.

4. On 2 December 2020, the Commission, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA), the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Greece on a ‘joint pilot’ to establish the first MPRIC on Lesvos.[4] The MoU set up a steering committee composed of the Task Force and the Greek authorities, which would oversee the implementation of the project and monitor whether any corrective actions might be needed to address issues like site capacity and reception conditions.[5] The Ombudsman understands that the principles set out in this MoU apply to all MPRICs.

5. The signatories of the MoU, together with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) were all involved in the design of the MPRICs. Already at this stage, the FRA raised potential concerns about the MPRICs.[6]

6. On 18 September 2021, the first of the MPRICs was opened on the Greek island of Samos. In November 2021, the MPRICs on the islands of Leros and Kos were also established.[7] The MPRICs on Chios and Lesvos should be opened soon.[8]  

7. Since the end of 2021, civil society organisations have been raising concerns about the conditions in the MPRICs and the impact on the fundamental rights, livelihoods and health of residents.[9]

8. Against this background, in July 2022, the Ombudsman opened a strategic inquiry into the Commission’s role in relation to the MPRICs.

The inquiry

9. The Ombudsman set out a series of questions about the MPRICs and the Commission’s role in ensuring fundamental rights are upheld[10]. The Commission replied to these questions at a meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team[11]. The Ombudsman also inspected documents held by the Commission relevant for the inquiry.

10. The Ombudsman also consulted six non-governmental organisations active in the area of asylum and migration[12] on the Commission’s reply and, more generally, on their views on issues in the MPRICs, including on the rights of residents.[13]

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

The role of the Task Force[14]

11. During the meeting with the Ombudsman inquiry team the Commission first described the role of the Task Force. The Task Force, which operates within the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME), facilitates coordination with the Greek authorities, as well as among different units in the Commission on issues relating to migration management in Greece. It can provide expertise on policy and practical issues to the sections of the Commission that deal with complaints concerning migration management in Greece.

12. The Task Force aims to ensure that: (i) the MPRICs comply with EU standards; (ii) the work of the different stakeholders on the ground - including the Greek authorities, EU agencies[15] and international organisations - does not overlap; and (iii) cooperation among all involved is effective and swift, including when it comes to financing projects.

13. The Task Force has held steering committee meetings with the Greek authorities in accordance with the MoU (the EUAA, Frontex, Europol and the FRA also take part in these meetings), as well as ad hoc meetings with the Greek authorities wherever needs arise. The purpose of the meetings is to exchange information and ensure that the objectives of the MoU are met. The Task Force has also facilitated a ’return working group’ between a variety of Greek stakeholders to enhance cooperation.

14. The Task Force includes Commission staff members who are deployed to the islands and provide information about the situation ‘on the ground’. This ensures proper monitoring of the implementation of the grant agreement and of compliance with EU standards on migration management. As part of this monitoring, the Commission staff are in close contact with civil society organisations, international organisations and those resident in the MPRICs. This monitoring feeds into any assessments made. The results of these assessments are presented in the steering committee.

15. The Commission acknowledged the need to update its website related to the MPRICs and the Task Force, and ensure that more information is available for the public. This is work in progress.

16. In reply to the Ombudsman’s consultation of civil society organisations, the Greek Council of Refugees (GCR) said that, although it had had meetings with the Task Force staff, these meetings had not been long enough to truly address concerns about the conditions at the MPRICs. It also raised concerns about the lack of information about the Task Force’s activities: meetings with the Greek government remain undocumented and there is no accessible ‘official’ information regarding the Task Force’s activities in Greece. There is no formal way to request information from or submit complaints to the Task Force. The Task Force has no permanent presence in Samos and Kos, GCR said.

17. Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) and HIAS replied that they have attended several informal meetings with the Task Force.

How the Commission ensures compliance with fundamental rights of migrants in the MPRICs[16]

18. The Commission said that it follows up on transposition of EU law in all Member States, including on EU reception standards for migrants.

19. To this end, the Commission had ensured Greece adopted rules setting out standard operating procedures for the MPRICs. This was a prerequisite for receiving the grants for the MPRICs, as were guarantees about the openness of accommodation areas in the MPRICs.

20. The Greek authorities’ choice of location for the MPRICs has been a very complicated process due to local geographical, judicial and political considerations. The Commission put an emphasis on ensuring the availability of public transport to the next town for persons residing in the MPRIC on Samos. The bus route was adapted so that the centre is served with several daily connections. The Commission said that it expects similar arrangements for the MPRIC on Lesvos once it is operational.

21. The type of materials used to build the migrants’ reception centres across the EU are not prescribed in EU law and ultimately are the choice of the national authorities. The Greek authorities maintain that internal fencing is required in order to minimise risks for vulnerable migrants, such as minors or those at risk due to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. However, the Commission has sought to ensure there are certain distances between the fences and the living areas. It also made proposals to ensure the residents in the MPRICs are given a sense of ownership, with a view to ensuring a tension-free environment. All persons arriving in the MPRICs have access to the asylum application process and access to legal aid in second instance procedures.  

22. The MPRICs are funded under emergency assistance awarded to the Greek government under the EU’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund[17]. Although the financial rules do not refer to the need for fundamental rights impact assessments, the grant agreement gives the Commission the right to recover or stop payments if the requirements of the grant agreement are not respected.

23. Surveillance technologies that are implemented in the MPRICs are funded under different financial structures. For example, the interception and identification system called HYPERION was co-funded under the Internal Security Fund[18]. Other systems are also funded under the Recovery and Resilience Facility[19]. The Commission verifies that surveillance technologies that receive EU funding comply with the applicable rules. Greece completed a data protection impact assessment and a fundamental rights impact assessment before the full deployment of the surveillance systems.

24. Apart from its involvement on the ground at the MPRICs, the Task Force worked hard with the Greek ministry of migration to ensure that protective custody of minors was abolished in national legislation. In August 2022, a guardianship law was adopted in national legislation, which had been under discussion between the Commission and the Greek authorities since 2009. In addition, the ‘emergency referral mechanism’ was developed by the Greek authorities in order to track and trace unaccompanied minors that are unaccounted for. The number of EU-funded shelters for unaccompanied minors has increased.

25. In their submissions to the Ombudsman, several of the civil society organisations pointed out that the MPRICs are located in extremely remote and isolated locations (in particular those on Samos, Kos and Lesvos). They also noted that, because of the lack of regularly serviced bus routes and the cost of transportation, migrants residing in the MRPICs do not have regular access to services and basic necessities, and cannot participate in everyday life or integrate into local communities.

26. Most consulted civil society organisations also contended that migrants in MPRICs are subjected to various forms of detention under inappropriate conditions. New arrivals are not allowed to leave the site and are therefore detained for registration purposes for a period of 25 days or more. New arrivals in 2022 were still subject to COVID-19 quarantine restrictions, even though such restrictions had already been lifted for the remainder of the population in Greece. Finally, Oxfam and the Greek Council for Refugees stated that residents of MPRICs are allowed to enter and exit sites only from 8am to 8pm.

27. Rescue Support Aegean and HIAS stated that, in June 2021, Greece declared Turkey a safe country for asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, as Turkey had already stopped accepting returns from Greece, migrants who have been ordered to return to Turkey because their asylum applications were declared inadmissible are detained indefinitely at the sole operational pre-removal detention centre in the MPRIC on Kos.

28. Various civil society organisations claimed that there are infrastructural shortcomings in the MPRICs (stoppages in the water supply, malfunctioning air-conditioning units and heating systems as well as unstable and extremely limited WiFi connections).

29. They also pointed out that the MPRICs are highly securitised and fortified (multiple layers of both internal and external fencing, closed-circuit surveillance systems, private security and police personnel and a thorough security screening process for entering and exiting the sites). 

30. According to Médecins Sans Frontières, there is no permanent doctor at the MPRIC on Samos, and patients needing specialist medical care must wait for a long time to be transferred to the mainland. Rescue Support Aegean and HIAS claimed that there is no permanent doctor in Kos. Médecins Sans Frontières stated that there is a high level of mental health issues amongst residents in the MPRIC on Samos. International Rescue Committee and I Have Rights raised similar concerns about the MPRIC on Samos.

31. Various civil society organisations referred to the high risk for sexual and gender-based violence in the MPRICs. Containers in which migrants are located do not always have locks. They also stated that there are no alternative safe shelters and/or designated areas for groups at risk.

32. According to Oxfam and the Greek Council for Refugees, access to the MPRICs for press and monitoring bodies has been restricted. Various civil society organisations stated that lawyers need permission from the site manager to access the MPRICs. Access to legal assistance is thus made more difficult for residents in the MPRICs. 

33. In addition, Oxfam and the Greek Council for Refugees stated that asylum seekers in the MPRICs do not receive detailed information on the asylum process and their rights. Various civil society organisations said that asylum seekers are not provided with sufficient notice for their asylum interviews and, therefore, often do not have the opportunity to consult non-governmental organisations providing legal aid or lawyers. As the asylum process proceeds quickly, vulnerabilities may not be detected. Médecins Sans Frontières also raised concerns about inadequate interpretation in the course of the asylum process.

The Ombudsman's assessment

34. The MPRICs receive funding under the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Internal Security Fund.[20] According to the regulations governing these funds[21], actions funded must comply with the EU’s commitment to upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms.

35. The grant agreement that the Commission signed with Greece confirms what the MoU says: that MPRICs must be constructed in accordance with the Reception Conditions Directive[22] and the EASO (now EUAA) Guidance on operational reception conditions, operational standards and indicators[23].

36. The MoU also states that the Commission should cooperate on a continuous basis with the Greek authorities to ensure adequate monitoring and supervision of the management of the MPRIC on Lesvos (and, by extension, the other MPRICs), and that rules on the management of EU funds continue to apply.

37. The above makes clear that the Commission must monitor that Greece uses the EU funds covering the MPRICs in compliance with EU law. This includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the Reception Conditions Directive, which provides for human and dignified standards of living for asylum seekers.[24]

38. This inquiry sought to assess how the Commission has monitored the MPRICs to ensure that the facilities are constructed and operated in a manner that upholds the fundamental rights of residents.

39. The inspected documents[25] show that the Task Force has regularly engaged with the Greek authorities on the design and implementation of the MPRICs. The Task Force organised workshops for the Greek authorities in which the European Asylum Support Office (EASO - now the EUAA) took part. Together with the FRA, it carried out fact finding visits in the field. The reports of the Task Force from on-the-spot monitoring visits are detailed and document the problems identified[26]. The Task Force promoted important changes in the Greek migration management legislation. Its participation in the meetings of the steering committee resulted in the Greek authorities giving regular accounts of their actions on migration management.

40. However, these Task Force activities are not yet sufficiently visible to the public. To address this, the Commission should proactively publish more documents relating to the Task Force activities on the dedicated webpage.[27] The Ombudsman will make suggestions to address this below.

41. The main objective of the Task Force is to ensure that the MPRICs comply with the rules and standards for the reception of asylum seekers. These standards are set out in the Reception Conditions Directive and the EASO guidance referred to above.

42. The inspected documents[28] show that, during the negotiations with the Greek authorities on setting up the MPRICs, the Commission insisted these standards be respected.

43. In addition, the EASO, with input from the FRA, carried out a detailed analysis on compliance with the requirements under the Reception Conditions Directive and issued recommendations for the MPRICs to ensure the fundamental rights of residents is guaranteed.[29]

44. More importantly, before the grant agreement for the MPRICs was signed, the Commission obliged Greece to adopt a law setting out a standard operating procedure at the MPRICs, complying with the above standards.[30]

45. While this is all to be welcomed, the Commission also has a responsibility to ensure that the standards are upheld in the day-to-day operation of the MPRICs, and not just in how they were designed and constructed.

46. The civil society organisations’ contributions to this inquiry[31] suggest that the current conditions at the three operational MPRICs (on Samos, Kos and Leros) do not yet comply with these standards.[32] This implies that more is needed when it comes to the Commission’s monitoring.

47. It is not clear why the Commission was only able to insist that, in the construction of the MPRICs, ‘certain distances’ be maintained between the internal fences and the living areas at the MPRICs, given its initial view on fencing. Even if the choice of materials used to build the MPRICs is a matter of national discretion,[33] this does not mean that the Commission has no say what the materials are used for. Indeed, the Commission presented to the Greek authorities complementary proposals for the design of MPRICs (including a design for alternative fences)[34]. However, so far, there are still external fences composed of two rows of barbed wire.[35]

48. In addition to the external barbed wire fencing, extensive surveillance systems are used as well.[36] The external fencing and surveillance infrastructure do not create a physical environment conducive to wellbeing and are, rather, reminiscent of detention facilities. The external and internal fences may also have negative health (including mental health) consequences on vulnerable migrants and those who have fled difficult circumstances. It is questionable how respect for human dignity[37] and protection of the best interests of the child[38] and of vulnerable individuals can be ensured if residents are forced to stay in such an environment. While safety concerns for these individuals and indeed all residents is paramount, the Médecins Sans Frontières reports on violent incidents within the Samos MPRIC suggests that there is room for improvement on all fronts.[39]

49. Access to the local communities outside of the MPRICs is essential for the migrants who stay there for many months.[40] It is positive that the Task Force insisted on bus connections to the MPRICs, which would have otherwise been completely cut off. However, as pointed out by civil society organisations, if the residents are not able to afford the bus and cannot reach the nearest town by other means, such bus connections do not give them the freedom to access essential services.[41] The inspected documents show that the Task Force has been exploring relevant options with national authorities. The outcome of these discussions is as yet unclear.

50. In light of the above findings, the Ombudsman considers that there is still room for improvement in how the Commission ensures that the already-operational MPRICs (on Samos, Kos and Leros) comply with the relevant standards. That said, the Ombudsman acknowledges the particular circumstances faced by the Commission in 2020-21, when it sought to act as quickly as possible to create bearable living conditions for the large numbers of asylum seekers arriving at the EU’s external borders in Greece.

51. The Ombudsman considers that, if the Commission had carried out an assessment of the potential fundamental rights impact before committing to fund the MPRICs, it may have been better placed to identify possible shortcomings and mitigation measures. While the rules governing EU funds do not include a specific requirement for carrying out a fundamental rights impact assessment, this does not prevent the Commission from carrying out such an assessment proactively in the course of the MPRIC project.[42]

52. The relevance and usefulness of such an assessment in this case comes, in part, from the early concerns signalled by FRA. In the course of this inquiry, the Ombudsman has not obtained sufficient assurances that these concerns have been addressed. The civil society contributions she received make clear that a range of human rights issues remain and that a full fundamental rights impact assessment is called for the ongoing MPRIC operations [43].

53. The Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to this end below.

54. It remains to be seen how the EASO standards and the Charter will be complied with in the MPRICs on Chios and Lesvos when they start operating. However, the inspected documents show that, in 2022, the Commission adopted a more rigorous approach when discussing the construction of the MPRICs on Chios and Lesvos[44] with the Greek authorities and when analysing the Greek application for funds to cover the construction of the MPRICs on Lesvos and Chios[45].

55. In addition, the Commission seems to be making use of all the tools at its disposal to address the shortcomings at the MPRICs on Samos, Leros and Kos and to prevent similar shortcomings on Chios and Lesvos. In parallel to the activities of the Task Force[46], the Commission launched an infringement procedure, as part of which it recently sent Greece a letter of formal notice for failing to transpose properly into national law all the provisions of the Reception Conditions Directive.[47]

56. In light of the findings above, the Ombudsman is closing this inquiry with the suggestions for improvement below. 

Conclusion

The Ombudsman closes the inquiry with suggestions for improvement.

The Commission, the FRA, and the EUAA will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

1. The Task Force should increase the overall transparency of its actions by: interacting in a more regular and structured format with civil society organisations present in the field, and publishing minutes of such meetings; requiring that the steering committee between the Task Force and the Greek authorities has regular meetings and publishes detailed minutes of such meetings. The Commission should publish documents relating to the activities of the Task Force on its dedicated webpage, including all grant agreements signed with Greece about MPRICs or summaries of them.

2. The Commission should conduct a fundamental rights impact assessment of the existing MPRICs, including setting out mitigating measures where it identifies problems. It should publish this assessment on its website. The fundamental rights impact should be assessed periodically throughout the course of the MPRICs’ operation.

3. The Commission should urge the Greek authorities to publish their fundamental rights impact assessment and personal data impact assessment of the surveillance system in the MPRICs. The Commission should include a link to that publication on its own website.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 07/06/2023

 

[1] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/about-task-force-migration-management_en

[2] https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-06/annual-activity-report-2020-migration-and-home-affairs_en.pdf (page. 10)

[3] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_21_1521; https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/annual-activity-report-2021-migration-and-home-affairs-annexes_en_0.pdf (page 128)

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2020-12/03122020_memorandum_of_understanding_en.pdf

[5] See page 5 of the MoU.

[6] The Establishment of the MPRICs: Aide memoire on issues to consider from a fundamental rights point of view’ https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-initial-reception-facilities-external-borders_en.pdf

[7] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/migration-management-greece/construction-new-reception-centres_en

[8] According to the Commission, as of October 2022, there are around 3 780 migrants in the reception centres on the Eastern Aegean Islands (https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/about-task-force-migration-management_en#:~:text=The%20mission%20of%20the%20Task,and%20asylum%20processes%20in%20Greece.)

[9] https://www.amnesty.eu/news/greece-asylum-seekers-being-illegally-detained-in-new-eu-funded-camp/

https://www.statewatch.org/analyses/2021/greece-the-new-hotspots-and-the-prevention-of-primary-flows-a-human-rights-disaster/

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/new-oxfam-report-uncovers-stories-prison-eu-funded-refugee-center

[10] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/158254

[11] The report on the meeting can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/inspection-report/en/164159.

[12] The six organisations were: OXFAM International (OXFAM), HIAS, Refugee Support Aegean (RSA), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and the Danish Refugee Council (DRC). RSA and HIAS submitted a joint contribution, OFXAM submitted a joint contribution with the Greek Council for Refugees (GRC) and IRC submitted a joint contribution with I Have Rights (IHR).

[13] The joint GRC and OXFAM contribution can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/167055.

The joint RSA and HIAS contribution can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/167052.

MSF’s contribution can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/167051.

The joint IRC and IHR contribution can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/167053.

DRC’s contribution can be found at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/167054. 

[14] In reply to questions 6-10 from the Ombudsman’s opening letter: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/158254

[15] EU agencies such as Frontex or the EUAA work independently in relation to their engagement in Greece. The EUAA has its own operating plan with Greece, and Frontex engages in Greece within the context of Joint Operation Poseidon.

[16] In reply to questions 1-5 from the Ombudsman’s opening letter: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/158254

[17] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/funding/asylum-migration-and-integration-funds/asylum-migration-and-integration-fund-2021-2027_en

[18] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/funding/internal-security-funds/internal-security-fund-2021-2027_en

[19] https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en

[20] The Internal Security Fund covers the MPRICs’ surveillance system.

[21] Regulation 516/2014 and Regulation 1147/2021 on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Regulation 513/2014, Regulation 514/2014, Regulation 515/2014 and Regulation 1149/2021 on the Internal Security Fund.

[22] Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicant for international protection (recast)

[23] https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EASO%20Guidance%20on%20reception%20conditions%20-%20operational%20standards%20and%20indicators%5B3%5D.pdf

[24] Recital 35 of the preamble of the Directive states that it respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter. The Directive seeks to ensure full respect for human dignity and to promote the application of Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, 18, 21 24 and 47 of the Charter. See CJEU judgements in case C-179/11, Cimade and Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration, para. 42-43 and 56 - https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-179/11&language=EN - and in case C-233/18, Zubair Haqbin v. Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers para. 46, 54 and 56: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=c-233/18.

[25] The Commission classified most of the inspected documents as confidential.

[26] The reports on the MPRICs are confidential.

[27] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/migration-management/about-task-force-migration-management_en

[28] These documents are confidential.

[29] The document is confidential. The analysis was issued before the first MPRIC on Samos opened and just before the signature of the revised grant agreement providing funds to cover the MPRICs on Lesvos and Chios.

[30] The Greek authorities adopted different legal acts to this end: the Ministerial Decision for the general regulation for the operation of MPRICs and mobile units no. 1/7433/2019 (GG 2219/Β/10.06.2019), Ministerial Decision on the Open Reception Accommodation Facilities no. 23/13532 (GG 5272/B/30.11.2020) and Ministerial Decision on Pre-Removal Detention Centres no. 8038/23/22-ιγ (GG l18/B/21.01.2015).

[31] Summarised in points 25-33.

[32] For example, according to the EASO Guidance: bedrooms should be lockable; sanitary installations should be secure and well lit; there should be effective access to relevant services, such as public services, schools, health care, shops, and social and legal assistance; the centres should carry out a risk assessment on a regular basis taking into account the views of residents on issues like security and the facilities; there should be access to necessary health care, at the very least emergency care and essential treatment of illnesses, including serious mental disorders.

[33] The EU funds covered the fences. The estimated budget for the fences is significant.

[34] This document is confidential.

[35] Oxfam and GRC reported that there are multiple layers of fencing, each fence being topped by two layers of barbed wire.

[36]  The Greek authorities had conducted a human rights impact assessment and a personal data impact assessment in relation to the surveillance system before it was installed in the MPRICs. The assessments are not in the public domain. The inspected documents did not include whatever exchanges between the Commission and the Greek authorities on this subject.

[37] Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT

[38] Article 24 of the Charter.

[39]  Médecins Sans Frontières points out that, given the obvious protection needs amongst the residents in the Samos MPRIC, adequate protective infrastructure and services should be put in place.

[40] The inspected documents show that the originally intended maximal period of stay was 6 months.

[41] Standard 1 of the EASO (now EUAA) guidance on reception conditions: operational standards and indicators states that ‘effective geographic access to relevant services, such as public services, school, health care, social and legal assistance, a shop for daily needs, laundry and leisure activities’ must be ensured. Standard 1 is ensured inter alia ‘when the relevant services are provided within the housing’ (indicator 1.2a), ‘the facility is located at a reasonable walking distance from relevant services and the available infrastructure is safe for walking’ (indicator 1.2b), ‘relevant services are accessible by public transport and the duration of the journey is reasonable’ (indicator 1.2c) or ‘relevant services are accessible through organised transport provided by the Member State’ (indicator 1.2d). On public transport the following remarks are made: ‘the regularity of the public transport itself should be taken into account, allowing the applicant to effectively avail themselves of the service by taking a return journey. Accessibility by public transport should be understood as transport costs being reimbursed or transport being free of charge when needed as a minimum for the following: health care and obtaining medication, the asylum procedure and legal assistance and education for children enrolled in school. Moreover, ‘the provision of transport should be clarified by specifying the regularity of transport provided by the Member State’.  

[42] In her decision on the joint inquiry concerning complaints 506-509-674-784-927-1381/2016/MHZ the Ombudsman pointed out the utility of the fundamental rights impact assessment after the action concerned has already started. She also said: ”The Ombudsman notes her Office’s longstanding view that good administration means, in the first place, observance of and respect for fundamental rights; where fundamental rights are not respected, there cannot be good administration. Accordingly, for all policies and actions of EU institutions and bodies which impact on human beings, any evaluation should contain an explicit consideration of the human rights impact of those policies and actions.” (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/75160).

[43] The ECHR has recently found a violation of Article 3 ECHR referring to the living conditions in the Samos Reception and Identification centre in 2019 https://hudoc.echr.coe.Reception and Identificantion Centre int/eng?i=001-223931

[44] In the third version of the grant agreement, signed by the Greek authorities on 17 February 2022. The grant is confidential.

[45] The views of the evaluation committee are confidential.

[46] See the Commission’s arguments summarised in point 11, last sentence. .

[47]  In January 2023, the Commission decided to open an infringement procedure (INF(2022)2156) by sending a letter of formal notice to Greece for failing to transpose in a fully conform manner all provisions of the Reception Conditions Directive. An infringement procedure (INFR(2022)2044) was also opened against Greece for failing to transpose fully all provisions of the Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals and stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection (Directive 2011/95/EU), as well as to transpose or implement certain provisions of the Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive) (INFR(2014)2231). (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_23_142).