Assessing necessity and proportionality for example, in the context of asylum procedures, the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum reviews a detention order every four weeks. 237 In Malta, the Immigration Appeals Board automatically reviews the detention order imposed upon an asylum applicant after seven working days, although this period can be extended by additional seven working days for duly justified reasons. If the applicant remains in detention, further reviews are conducted every two months.238 These two examples concern all detention orders. In some cases, there are specific provisions for children. For example, in Finland, a District Court must confirm the detention order within four days, or 24 hours for unaccompanied children.239 If the detained person is not released, the District Court must review the matter on its own initiative no later than two weeks after its previous decision.240 Similarly, in Romania, when children are detained with one or both parents or a legal guardian, the General Inspectorate for Immigration reviews the detention decision within one month, instead of three months as for adults.241 Promising practice Involving specialised child protection staff when ordering or extending detention Regular assessments and reviews involving competent child protection authorities and other specialised staff serve to safeguard the best interests of the child. They can determine whether or not the child’s health has deteriorated as a result of the deprivation of liberty. This is the case in Finland. Section 125 (a) of the Finnish Aliens Act requires the municipal child welfare authority to provide a written assessment by a  professionally qualified social worker to a  District Court that is hearing a  child detention case.’ The qualified expert has an opportunity to be heard by the court. Source: Finland, Finnish Aliens Act, Section 122 read in conjunction with Section 117a and Section 121 237 Austria, Aliens Police Act Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz), Article 80 (6). 238 Malta, Reception of Asylum-seekers Regulations, Subsidiary Legislation 420.06, as amended by Legal Notice 417 of 2015 Reg.6.3–4. 239 Finland, Aliens Act, Section 124 (2) . 240 Finland, Aliens Act, Section 128. 241 Romania, Aliens Act, Emergency Ordinance No. 194/2002 on the legal regime of aliens in Romania, Article 101(13) and 106(3). 5.3.3. Prioritise procedures involving children Another factor affecting the length of potential detention is the overall duration of the procedure based on which the detention is imposed. In this context, the vulnerability of children and their perception of the passing of time mean that prolonged decision-making in asylum or return-related proceedings have particularly adverse effects on children. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, therefore, called in its General Comment No. 14 (2013) for procedures or processes regarding or impacting children to be prioritised and completed in the shortest time possible.242 In A.B. and Others v. France, the ECtHR criticised the absence of effective steps by the authorities to execute the expulsion order swiftly, noting that the applicants had been detained for 18 days without any flight being organised or documents being obtained.243 Prioritising procedures involving children requires that children are immediately identified, particularly when they travel unaccompanied or are at risk. At borders, the Frontex Vega Handbook, initially designed for airports but now being adapted for use at land and sea borders, is a handy tool for Frontex as well as national border guards to swiftly refer children at risk to appropriate child protection services thus reducing the risk of arbitrary detention. In the field of asylum, one way to complete procedures swiftly without reducing the quality of the examination is to assess the claims of children first. Article 31 (7) of the Asylum Procedures Directive explicitly gives EU Member States the option to prioritise examination of an application for international protection in the case of applicants who are vulnerable or in need of special procedural guarantees. It refers in particular to unaccompanied children. In the exceptional cases where detention of asylum-seeking children is deemed absolutely necessary as a last resort, such an approach could help reduce the length of detention to the minimum possible time. Some EU Member States address the need to conduct procedures related to children swiftly in national law. Article 6 of the Finnish Aliens Act, for example, stipulates that matters concerning children are to be processed urgently. In Romania, the relevant legislation explicitly stipulates that the asylum application of an unaccompanied child must be “analysed as a matter of 242 UN, Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art.3, para. 1), 29 May 2013, CRC/C/GC/14, para. 93. 243 ECtHR, A.B. and Others v. France, No. 11593/12, 12 July 2016, para. 155. 61