Download des gesamten Berichts

Zusammenfassung:

Procedure:

• Entry through the transit zones: Since March 2016, an ever-growing number of migrants continue to gather in the “pre-transit zones”, which are areas partly on Hungarian territory that are sealed off from the actual transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, by fences in the direction of Serbia. The clear factors that determine who is allowed access to the transit zone are time of arrival and extent of vulnerability. The other determining factors are not so clear. In Röszke there are three separate lists for those waiting: one for families, one for unaccompanied minors and one for single men. In Tompa there is a single list containing the names of all three groups. Both lists are managed by a so-called community leader or list manager who is chosen by the people waiting at the given place and who communicates both with the Serbian and Hungarian authorities. Only 5 people per transit zone are allowed to enter per day. In January 2017, the HHC’s attorneys were denied access to the part of the transit zone where asylum seekers are placed. They can only provide legal assistance to those who already signed the mandate.
• Irregular entry: Legal amendments that entered into force on 5 July 2016 allow the Hungarian police to automatically push back asylum seekers who are apprehended within 8 km of the Serbian-Hungarian or Croatian- Hungarian border to the external side of the border fence, without registering their data or allowing them to submit an asylum claim, in a summary procedure lacking the most basic procedural safeguards. Between 5 July and 31 December 2016, 19,057 migrants were denied access (prevented from entering or escorted back to the border) at the Hungarian-Serbian border. Serious inhuman treatment by the personnel in uniforms was reported by various sources.
• Dublin: In May 2016, the IAO started to issue Dublin decisions on returns to Greece again. The IAO is of the opinion that the M.S.S. case is no longer applicable, since Greece has received substantial financial support and the reception conditions in Greece are not worse than in some other EU countries. In some cases the HHC lawyers successfully challenged such decisions at the domestic courts and in two cases the HHC obtained Rule 39 interim measures from the ECtHR. In December 2016 the practice changed again and no more Greece Dublin transfer decisions are issued.
• Safe third country: In 2016 the Supreme Court’s opinion on Serbia as a safe third country was withdrawn, on the ground that legislation has since changed and its application based on current asylum and migration laws is no longer possible. The practice of the Hungarian courts regarding the inadmissibility decisions based on Serbia being a safe third country has varied. Inadmissible decisions based on safe third country ground continue to be issued in most of the cases where asylum seekers arrive through Serbia.
• Relocation: Hungary has not applied the relocation scheme to date, and has brought an action before the CJEU to challenge the legality of Council Decision 2015/1601.

Reception conditions:

• Accommodation: The centre in Nagyfa was closed in August 2016, while Bicske, the closest reception to Budapest, was closed in December 2016. Balassagyarmat, Kiskunhalas, Körmend and Vámosszabadi are still operating and located in smaller towns and further away from the capital. When Bicske camp was closed in mid-December 2016, several single men were ordered to go to the tent camp of Körmend, despite the fact that there were free capacities in other open centres in the country, which were not tent camps. Despite improper heating system in tents, which caused inhuman treatment of the residents in harsh winter, the requests to be 11relocated to other camps were not approved by the IAO in 2016; only in mid-January 2017 was the change of camp approved.
• Financial allowance: Since 1 April, 2016 asylum seekers are not entitled to receive pocket money.

Detention of asylum seekers:

• Detention centres: The newly built asylum detention centres in Kiskunhalas was opened on 11 April 2016. The new facility has gradually been filled by the end of July and it ran with almost full capacity during the summer. Asylum detention is implemented in 3 places: Kiskunhalas, Nyírbátor and Békéscsaba. In 2016 there were often periods when there were more asylum seekers detained than in open reception centres.
• Legality of detention: In the O.M. v. Hungary judgment of 5 October 2016, the ECtHR found that detention was not assessed in a sufficiently individualised manner and that the authorities did not exercise particular care in order to avoid situations facing an asylum seeker on account
• of his sexual orientation, which risked reproducing the plight that forced him to flee. Further on, detention for the purpose of establishing the asylum seeker’s identity does not fall under the scope of Article 5(1)(b) of ECHR, when asylum seeker makes reasonable efforts to clear his/her identity, because there is no legal obligation for asylum seekers in Hungary to provide documentary evidence of their identity.

Content of international protection:

• Residence permit and review: The duration of Hungarian IDs issued to refugees was reduced from 10 years to 3 years, whereas in the case of persons with subsidiary protection, it was reduced from 5 years to 3 years as of 1 June 2016. According to the same reform, refugee and subsidiary protection statuses are to be reviewed every 3 years.
• Integration support: As a result of legislative changes in April and June 2016, all forms of integration support were eliminated. Since the entry into effect of Decrees 113/2016 and 62/2016 and the June 2016 amendment to the Asylum Act, beneficiaries of international protection are no longer eligible to any state support such as housing support, additional assistance and others.