3. Maximum length of detention An important element to ensure that detention remains as short as possible is the automatic release once the grounds for detention disappear. Normally, all countries provide for the automatic release of the person. An exception is, however, Lithuania, where the institution which initiates an alien’s detention is obliged to immediately apply to the local court of the locality of his/her residence with a request for ordering the release of the alien.154 FRA Opinion The six-month and very exceptionally 18-month period set forth in the Return Directive has to be seen as a ceiling. Given the interference that detention has on personal dignity, it is of utmost importance to regulate in national legislation that detention shall be ordered or maintained only for as long as it is strictly necessary to ensure successful removal. National legislation should be drafted in a manner so as to ensure that the individual circumstances of the person concerned are evaluated in each case, thus making the systematic application of the maximum time limit for detention unlawful. 3.3. Automatic periodic reviews Return Directive Article 15.3 In every case, detention shall be reviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country national concerned or ex officio. In the case of prolonged detention periods, reviews shall be subject to the supervision of a judicial authority. Automatic periodic reviews by the administration or by courts are one tool to ensure that detention is kept as short as possible. Two ways of implementing such automatic periodic reviews can be distinguished. The first option is for the law to allow the imposition of detention for the period of time envisaged to implement the removal, but provide for regular periodic reviews. The second option is to allow detention only for a short period of time after which the detention will be reviewed and extended only in case this is still warranted. A mechanism to review at regular intervals if the deprivation of liberty is still justified is also included in Article 15.3 of the Return Directive. In addition, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recently called for detention to be subject to periodic judicial reviews.155 The provision in the Return Directive requires 154 Lithuania, Law on Legal Status of Aliens, Article 118, p. 1. 155 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 1707 (2010) at 9.1.3. the involvement of courts in case of “prolonged detention periods”. The directive leaves some flexibility to states to define exact timelines for regular reviews and to determine when detention periods can be considered as prolonged. Current state practice might help in defining such length. The research found that eight countries156 have laid down specific timelines which require courts to review the lawfulness of detention. In three other countries, regular reviews can or must be undertaken by the administration.157 In two countries, Austria and Denmark, periodic reviews only start after the expiration of a certain period of time.158 Among those countries that provide for automatic periodic reviews, over half foresee timelines which are shorter or correspond to one month,159 whereas in five countries the deadline for review is set at two months.160 Excluding those EU Member States in which the maximum length of detention does normally not exceed 156 Austrian Aliens Police Act, Section 80.6; Estonia, OLPEA, Section 25; Denmark, Aliens Act, Section 37.3; France, CESEDA at 552.7; Hungary, TCN Act at 55.3 and 58.2; Italy LD 286/98 at Article 14; Latvia, Immigration Law, Section 54.2-4; Luxemburg, Immigration Law, Articles 120.1 and 120.3. 157 In Belgium (Law on Foreigners at Article 7.11), detention is ordered for two months and subsequently extended for another two if the administration has initiated removal proceedings with due diligence within seven working days from the detention. In Sweden a detention order shall be re-examined by the police or the Migration Board, Sweden Aliens Act, Chapter 10, Section 9. In the UK, operational guidance sets out that after the initial decision to detain, continued detention must be subject to periodic review according to a timetable of reviews, namely after 24 hours, then seven days, 14 days, 21 days, 28 days, and then monthly, with increasing levels of responsibility to higher administrative officials for the decision to continue detention; see Operational Enforcement Manual, Chapter 55.8, available online at: http://www.ukba. homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/enforcement/ detentionandremovals. 158 In Austria, detention has to be reviewed by courts every eight weeks only when it lasts for longer than six months (Austria Aliens Police Act, Section 80.6). In Denmark, if the court finds the detention legal it will set a deadline which can be prolonged by the court at a later stage however no more than four weeks at a time (Aliens Act, Section 37.3). 159 In France, detention is approved after 48 hours for a period of 15 days and can be extended for additional 15 days in certain circumstances (see CESEDA at 552-7) In Italy detention is initially ordered for 30 days, extended once for another 30 days and, if special circumstances are present it can further be extended twice for 60 days each time (see LD 286/98 at Article 14). In Hungary, the prolongation of detention shall be reviewed every 30 days upon the motivated initiative of the immigration authorities – see TCN Act at 55.3 and 58.2. In Luxembourg, detention is ordered for one month and can be extended for an additional month for three times (Immigration Law at Article 120.1 and 120.3). In Denmark (Aliens Act, Section 37.3) if the court finds the detention legal it will set a deadline for how long it can be upheld. This deadline can be prolonged by the court at a later stage however no more than 4 weeks at a time. In Sweden a detention order shall be re-examined by the police or the Migration Board within two weeks from the date on which enforcement of the order began (Aliens Act Chapter 10, Section 9). For the UK see above footnote 158. 160 Reviews of two months are foreseen in Estonia (OLPEA, Section 25), Latvia (Immigration Law, , Section 54.2-4) and Sweden concerning refusal-ofentry or expulsion order (Aliens Act Chapter 10, Section 9 – although not necessarily by a court, Section 12). Austria foresees a compulsory judicial review every eight weeks for all detainees held for more than six months (Austria Aliens Police Act, Section 80.6). In Belgium, detention is ordered for two months initially and can be extended by the administration for further two months (Law on Foreigners, Article 7.11). 37