M.S.S. v. BELGIUM AND GREECE JUDGMENT 61 practice and that the asylum procedure is marked by such major structural deficiencies that asylum-seekers have very little chance of having their applications and their complaints under the Convention seriously examined by the Greek authorities, and that in the absence of an effective remedy, at the end of the day they are not protected against arbitrary removal back to their countries of origin (see paragraphs 160 and 173-95 above). 301. The Court notes, firstly, the shortcomings in access to the asylum procedure and in the examination of applications for asylum (see paragraphs 173-88 above): insufficient information for asylum-seekers about the procedures to be followed; difficult access to the Attica police headquarters; no reliable system of communication between the authorities and the asylum-seekers; a shortage of interpreters and lack of training of the staff responsible for conducting the individual interviews; a lack of legal aid effectively depriving the asylum-seekers of legal counsel; and excessively lengthy delays in receiving a decision. These shortcomings affect asylumseekers arriving in Greece for the first time as well as those sent back there in application of the Dublin Regulation. 302. The Court is also concerned about the findings of the different surveys carried out by the UNHCR, which show that almost all firstinstance decisions are negative and drafted in a stereotyped manner without any details of the reasons for the decisions being given (see paragraph 184 above). In addition, the watchdog role played by the refugee advisory committees at second instance has been removed and the UNHCR no longer plays a part in the asylum procedure (see paragraphs 115 and 189 above). 303. The Government maintained that whatever deficiencies there might be in the asylum procedure, they had not affected the applicant’s particular situation. 304. The Court notes in this connection that the applicant claims not to have received any information about the procedures to be followed. Without wishing to question the Government’s good faith concerning the principle of an information brochure being made available at the airport, the Court attaches more weight to the applicant’s version because it is corroborated by a very large number of accounts collected from other witnesses by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the UNHCR and various non-governmental organisations. In the Court’s opinion, the lack of access to information concerning the procedures to be followed is clearly a major obstacle in accessing those procedures. 305. The Government also criticised the applicant for not setting the procedure in motion by going to the Attica police headquarters within the time-limit prescribed in the notification. 306. On this point, the Court notes firstly that the three-day time-limit the applicant was given was a very short one considering how difficult it is to gain access to the police headquarters concerned.