Title	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)
Publisher	UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Publication Date	31 August 2022
Country	Hungary
Topics	Access to procedures | Non-refoulement | Right to seek asylum | Safe third country
Related Document(s)	CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47287/15) (Grand Chamber)  |  Submission by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights  |  Case of Shahzad v. Hungary  |  H46-11 Ilias and Ahmed group v. Hungary (Application No. 47287/15) - Supervision of the execution of the European Court's judgments
Cite as	UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 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, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/6329a2bd4.html [accessed 4 October 2022]
Comments	31. Hungarian national law remains unchanged and authorizes the automatic removal of all third-country nationals intercepted for irregular entry or stay, including those intending to apply for asylum, under regulations applicable in a “crisis situation due to mass immigration.” In addition, legislative amendments introduced as of 27 May 2020, effectively deny asylum-seekers the right to access a fair and efficient asylum-procedure. Both of these measures are contrary to international refugee and human rights law as well as EU law. As a result of these all of these factors, Hungary has de facto shifted the responsibility for asylum, reception and protection elsewhere. In UNHCR’s view, “[m]easures designed, or effectively serving, to avoid responsibility or to shift, rather than share, burdens are contrary to the 1951 Refugee Convention and principles of international cooperation and solidarity.”40 32. UNHCR recommends to the Committee of Ministers to continue the supervision of the execution of both judgments and to call on the Government of Hungary to fully implement them.