Case Law

The applicant complained that he had been part of a collective expulsion on 3 September 2016, in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention, that he had had no remedy at his disposal that would have enabled him to complain of a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion | Countries: Hungary - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Serbia

1. Article 23(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 45(4) of that directive and in the light of the general principle of EU law relating to the right to sound administration and of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation which provides that, where a decision rejecting an application for international protection or withdrawing such protection is based on information the disclosure of which would jeopardise the national security of the Member State in question, the person concerned or his or her legal adviser can access that information only after obtaining authorisation to that end, are not provided even with the substance of the grounds on which such decisions are based and cannot, in any event, use, for the purposes of administrative procedures or judicial proceedings, the information to which they may have had access. 2. Article 4(1) and (2), Article 10(2) and (3), Article 11(2) and Article 45(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 14(4)(a) and Article 17(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as: precluding national legislation under which the determining authority is systematically required, where bodies entrusted with specialist functions linked to national security have found, by way of a non-reasoned opinion, that a person constituted a danger to that security, to refuse to grant that person subsidiary protection, or to withdraw international protection previously granted to that person, on the basis of that opinion. 3. Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95 must be interpreted as: not precluding an applicant from being excluded from being eligible for subsidiary protection, pursuant to that provision, on the basis of a criminal conviction of which the competent authorities were already aware when they granted to that applicant, at the end of a previous procedure, refugee status which was subsequently withdrawn.

22 September 2022 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Exclusion clauses - International protection - National security / Public order - Statelessness | Countries: Hungary

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

16 November 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Illegal entry - Immigration Detention - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Hungary

The Court: Decides to join to the merits the respondent Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s victim status, and dismisses it; Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

8 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Hungary - Pakistan

The case concerned the applicants’ confinement in the Röszke transit zone on the border with Serbia in April-August 2017. The Court found, in particular, that the lack of food provided to R.R. and the conditions of stay of the other applicants (a pregnant woman and children) had led to a violation of Article 3. It also found that that the applicants’ stay in the transit zone had amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty and that the absence of any formal decision of the authorities and any proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided speedily by a court had led to violations of Article 5.

2 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations: – in providing that applications for international protection from third-country nationals or stateless persons who, arriving from Serbia, wish to access, in its territory, the international protection procedure, may be made only in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, while adopting a consistent and generalised administrative practice drastically limiting the number of applicants authorised to enter those transit zones daily; – in establishing a system of systematic detention of applicants for international protection in the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa, without observing the guarantees provided for in Article 24(3) and Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 and Articles 8, 9 and 11 of Directive 2013/33; – in allowing the removal of all third-country nationals staying illegally in its territory, with the exception of those of them who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, without observing the procedures and safeguards laid down in Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 12(1) and Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/115; – in making the exercise by applicants for international protection who fall within the scope of Article 46(5) of Directive 2013/32 of their right to remain in its territory subject to conditions contrary to EU law.

17 December 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Illegal entry - Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

The case concerned a transgender man from Iran who had obtained asylum in Hungary but could not legally change his gender and name in that country. The Court noted that the domestic system for gender recognition had excluded the applicant simply because he did not have a birth certificate from Hungary, a change in the birth register being the way name and gender changes were legally recognised. The Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life owing to the refusal to give him access to the legal gender recognition procedure.

16 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Birth Certificates - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Right to family life | Countries: Hungary - Iran, Islamic Republic of

Commission sought a declaration from the Court that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, an appropriate number of applicants for international protection who could be relocated swiftly to its territory, the republic of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic failed to fulfil its obligations

2 April 2020 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Admission quotas - Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Resettlement | Countries: Czech Republic - Greece - Hungary - Italy - Poland

The Court found in particular that the Hungarian authorities had failed in their duty under Article 3 to assess the risks of the applicants not having proper access to asylum proceedings in Serbia or being subjected to chain-refoulement, which could have seen them being sent to Greece, where conditions in refugee camps had already been found to be in violation of Article 3. In a development of its case-law, it held that Article 5 was not applicable to the applicants’ case as there had been no de facto deprivation of liberty in the transit zone. Among other things, the Court found that the applicants had entered the transit zone of their own initiative and it had been possible in practice for them to return to Serbia, where they had not faced any danger to their life or health. Their fears of a lack of access to Serbia’s asylum system or of refoulement to Greece, as expressed under Article 3, had not been enough to make their stay in the transit zone involuntary.

21 November 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rejection at border - Right to liberty and security - Safe third country - Transit | Countries: Bangladesh - Greece - Hungary - North Macedonia - Serbia - Türkiye

The case concerned media access to reception facilities for asylum-seekers. The applicant in the case, a journalist for an Internet news portal, complained about the authorities’ refusal of his request to carry out interviews and take photographs at the Debrecen Reception Centre, thus preventing him from reporting on the living conditions there. The Court stressed that research work was an essential part of press freedom and had to be protected. It was not convinced that restricting the applicant’s ability to carry out such research work, which had prevented him from reporting first-hand on a matter of considerable public interest, namely the refugee crisis in Hungary, had been sufficiently justified. In particular, the authorities had only given summary reasons, namely possible problems for the safety and private lives of asylum-seekers, for their refusal, without any real weighing up of the interests at stake.

8 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom of expression | Countries: Hungary