CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM V. INSTITUTIONS ORGANISING THE RECEPTION OF ASYLUM SEEKERS 1. General outline In 2010, advisers to the Chancellor of Justice carried out own-initiative announced visits to Illuka Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers (hereinafter also called the reception centre) (Inspection visit to Illuka Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers, case No 7-7/091780) and premises of the PBGB which are used for accommodating asylum seekers during the performance of procedural steps (Inspection visit to the PBGB accommodation facilities for asylum seekers, case No 7-7/091782). The inspection visits took place respectively on 22 January 2010 and 26 January 2010. During the inspection visits, advisers to the Chancellor of Justice, while also performing the function of the national preventive mechanism under Article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, verified compliance with fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals in institutions organising the reception of asylum seekers. As a result of the inspection, the Chancellor made recommendations to Illuka Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers and the Minister of Social Affairs, as well as the Director General of the PBGB and the Minister of Internal Affairs, for guaranteeing the principles of lawfulness and good administration. On 21 February 2011, the Chancellor made an enquiry with the Minister of Social Affairs, Illuka Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers and Director General of the PBGB concerning implementation of his recommendations. As during the inspection visit also an issue of conformity of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens and the Minister of Internal Affairs Regulation No 47 of 7 July 2006 “Internal rules in the official premises of the Police and Border Guard Board” with the Constitution, the law and the EU Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (hereinafter also referred to as the Reception Conditions Directive) arose, the Chancellor also sent an additional memorandum to the Minister of Social Affairs and the Minister of Internal Affairs. In the memorandum, the Chancellor found that § 33(1) of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens is contrary to § 20 and § 11 of the Constitution, as the Act lays down an imperative requirement that an alien who has submitted the asylum application while staying in an expulsion centre or in the course of execution of the expulsion should be detained in an expulsion centre until the termination of the asylum proceedings. Second, the Chancellor reached the conclusion that § 12(2) clause 3 is contrary to § 10 and § 28 of the Constitution and Article 15 of the EU Council Directive 2003/9, as the Act only provides for arranging emergency care to asylum seekers. Third, it was found that delegating norms for establishing internal rules of these institutions are presented in a way which leaves the substance or scope of the delegating norm unclear. Therefore, the Chancellor pointed out that § 12(8) and § 32(8) of the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens are in conflict with § 3(1), first sentence, of the Constitution to the extent that the delegating norm for establishing the internal rules does not reflect the substance and scope of the norm. Fourth, it was found that the internal rules for official premises of the Police and Border Guard Board established by the Minister of Internal Affairs Regulation No 47 of 7 July 2006 contain several provisions which have no legal basis and which interfere with fundamental rights (freedom of movement, right of ownership, etc). On this basis, the Chancellor reached the conclusion that § 5(2), § 7(1) clause 2, § 6(3) clause 2, § 6(3) clause 4, § 6(3) clause 6 and § 6(3) clause 8 of the internal rules are in conflict with the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens and § 3(1), first sentence, of the Constitution. The following part contains an overview of the problems which occurred both in Illuka Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers and the premises of the PBGB. 39