On October 14, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in the Case of B.F. v. Greece. The case concerned an Iranian asylum seeker detained in Greece who complained about the unlawfulness of his detention, the lack of effective remedies, and the absence of substantive judicial review.

The Court unanimously found that Greece violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the applicant’s degrading treatment while detained for two months and eighteen days at the Kolonos police station, a facility lacking the amenities required for prolonged detention. The Court highlighted that police stations are designed for short-term stays only and that the conditions described—overcrowding, lack of hygiene, insufficient ventilation, and inadequate medical care—constituted treatment contrary to Article 3.

The Court further found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, holding that the applicant did not have an effective remedy to challenge his detention conditions. The Court observed that although Greek law [see here for original language version] provided for judicial review, in practice the domestic courts failed to meaningfully assess the applicant’s complaints.

In contrast, the Court held that there had been no violation of Article 5(1)1, concluding that the applicant’s detention was lawful, pursued in good faith, and proportionate to the purpose of deportation and asylum processing. The deficiencies in detention conditions did not render it arbitrary, and its duration was not excessive.

Having found violations of Articles 3 and 13, but not of Article 5(1)1, the Court awarded the applicant €3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €1,500 for costs and expenses, to be paid directly to his legal representative.

Although the judgment concerns the treatment of a single asylum seeker, it underscores persistent concerns over detention practices in Greece, particularly the continued use of police stations for prolonged administrative detention of migrants and asylum seekers. The Court’s ruling reaffirms that detention conditions must respect human dignity and that effective remedies must exist in domestic law.