as part of the more general context of the relationship between public health subsystems and the National Health System. The final pronouncement of the requested member of the Government is still expected. • Case Q-3382/16 Entity addressed: Portuguese Civil Aviation Authority Date: 2016.07.11 Subject: Conditioning of access by lawyer to the Temporary Installation Center of Humberto Delgado Airport, in Lisbon Status: The regulator recommended to the airport concessionary the removal of this financial conditioning. Reply pending A complaint was filed against the access procedures, endured by a lawyer who wished to visit a foreign citizen detained at the Temporary Installation Centre, in Lisbon Airport, under the responsibility of the Portuguese Immigration and Borders Service (SEF). Two issues were at stake, the first concerning an alleged delay in the completion of the access, indicating that there had been control at the entrance, with personal and laptop inspections, the second one the charging of a fee of € 11,87. The first question was clarified in connection with SEF, as the inspection made was merely the same enforced to all crew members and passengers entering the airport, with metal detection and objects control through X-ray, without any control of the content of the laptop. Concerning the fee demanded for access, as it was levelled by the airport concessionaire, allegedly by determination of the National Civil Aviation Authority - ANAC, the Ombudsman addressed a letter to this entity, enhancing the impossibility of its existence, due to the constitutional framework of the fundamental right to a due process of law and to legal aid. It was not considered as feasible to restrict the possibility of contact between a detained person and his or her legal counsel. To this extent, it has been considered that it is the duty of the State (in a broad sense, clearly encompassing every public entity or in the exercise of public powers) to ensure and even facilitate such access and contact, without being able to pass on the costs of the measures security to be taken.(69) (69)  As a parallel example, there were other places of detention, which were under the responsibility of other police forces or the prison services, where important security procedures were also adopted, in any case any fee never being allowed. 158 |