Last Updated: Thursday, 29 September 2022, 11:15 GMT
Refworld Home
Latest Refworld Updates for Hungary RSS feed

Hungary - flag Hungary

UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.

Filter:
Showing 1-10 of 1,260 results
H46-11 Ilias and Ahmed group v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) - Supervision of the execution of the European Court's judgments

22 September 2022 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers | Document type: Decisions

H46-11 Ilias and Ahmed group v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) - Supervision of the execution of the European Court's judgments

22 September 2022 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers | Document type: Decisions

Recommendations by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ('UNHCR') concerning the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15; Grand Chamber judgment of 21 November 2019) and Shahzad v. Hungary (Application No. 12625/17; Judgment of 8 July 2021)

31 August 2022 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations

I.A. v. Hungary (Application No. 38297/17)

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Illegal entry - Immigration Detention - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Hungary

Case of Shahzad v. 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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Safe third country | Countries: Hungary - Pakistan

EASO Age assessment practices in EU+ countries: updated findings

July 2021 | Publisher: European Union: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) | Document type: Thematic Reports

R.R. and others v Hungary (application no. 36037/17)

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review – Hungary – UPR 39th Session (2021)

February 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

Commission v Hungary (Accueil des demandeurs de protection internationale) C-808/18

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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Illegal entry - Immigration Detention | Countries: Hungary

UNHCR observations on legislative amendments related to exclusion from and revocation of refugee status and subsidiary protection status

December 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Comments on National Legislation

Search Refworld

Advanced Search | Search Tips
UNHCR logo