M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE JUDGMENT 43 accommodation centre specially designed for asylum-seekers, where they were adequately fed. 209. In their observations in reply to the questions posed by the Court during the hearing before the Grand Chamber, the Government gave more detailed information about the layout and facilities of the centre. It had a section reserved for asylum-seekers, comprising three rooms, ten beds and two toilets. The asylum-seekers shared a common room with people awaiting expulsion, where there was a public telephone and a water fountain. The applicant had been held there in June 2009 pending receipt of his “pink card”. 210. The Government stated that in August 2009 the applicant had been held in a section of the centre separate from that reserved for asylumseekers, designed for aliens who had committed a criminal offence. The persons concerned had an area of 110 sq. m, containing nine rooms and two toilets. There was also a public telephone and a water fountain. 211. Lastly, the Government stressed the short duration of the periods of detention and the circumstances of the second period, which had resulted not from the applicant’s asylum application but from the crime he had committed in attempting to leave Greece with false documents. B. Observations of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the UNHCR, third-party interveners 212. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights stated that he had been informed by Médecins sans Frontières – Greece (see paragraph 166 above) of the conditions of detention in the centre next to the airport. 213. The UNHCR had visited the centre in May 2010 and had found the conditions of detention there unacceptable, with no fresh air, no possibility of taking a walk in the open air and no toilets in the cells. C. The Court’s assessment 1. Admissibility 214. The Court considers that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention in Greece raise complex issues of law and fact, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. 215. It follows that this part of the application is not manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.