M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE JUDGMENT 77 before the Aliens Office made no provision for such explanations and that the Belgian authorities applied the Dublin Regulation systematically (see paragraph 352 above). 367. Based on these conclusions and on the obligations incumbent on the States under Article 3 of the Convention in terms of expulsion, the Court considers that by transferring the applicant to Greece the Belgian authorities knowingly exposed him to conditions of detention and living conditions that amounted to degrading treatment. 368. That being so, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION BY BELGIUM OF ARTICLE 13 TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY AGAINST THE EXPULSION ORDER 369. The applicant maintained that there was no remedy under Belgian law, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (cited above), by which he could have complained about the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (cited above). A. The parties’ submissions 1. The applicant 370. The applicant submitted that he had acted as swiftly as possible in the circumstances in lodging a first application for a stay of execution of the expulsion measure under the extremely urgent procedure. He had come up against practical obstacles, however, which had hindered his access to this procedure. 371. Firstly, he explained that on the day the order to leave the country was issued, on 19 May 2009, he was taken into custody and placed in a closed centre for illegal aliens. Not until five days later, after the long Ascension Day weekend, had a lawyer been appointed, at his request, by the Belgian authorities, or had the Belgian Committee for Aid to Refugees at least been able to identify that lawyer to pass on general information to him concerning “Dublin” asylum-seekers. This first lawyer, who was not a specialist in asylum cases, lodged an application for a stay of execution under the extremely urgent procedure after having had the file for three days, which in the applicant’s opinion was by no means an excessively long time. 372. Secondly, the case had been scheduled for examination only one hour after the application was lodged, preventing the applicant’s lawyer,