According to press information, the European Court of Human Rights has amerced Hungary in two cases in connection with taking three foreign asylum seekers into custody.

According to the Court, the custody was arbitrary in both cases; hence the Hungarian procedure violated the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s point of view is that the Hungarian authorities should have provided the possibility of legal redress based on the operative law. Moreover, Hungarian authorities should have provided a written explanation on the causes for not initiating the ending of the foreign asylum seekers’ custody. The decision of the Court shows an understanding of the Hungarian national legal system that is different from the standpoint of the Hungarian public administration authorities and courts. It is important to point out that according to the court, it was not the custody itself that was illicit, but the lack of coherence between the regulation of the right of asylum and the actions of immigration services.

It needs to be emphasized that the legal instruction in question, according to which the legislative unit let the immigration authorities decide over the foreign asylum seekers, has not been operative since 1st January 2008. The operative law governing refugees and asylum seekers came into force on 1st January 2008. It was altered in 2010 exactly in order to provide for the diverse interpretations of the instruction.

The exact facts of the two cases need to be presented.  The siblings arrived illegally from Iraq and asked for asylum. During the proceedings, the authorities appointed a reception base as accommodation for them. The foreigners did not wait for the result of the proceedings and left for an unknown location, as a result of which the proceedings could not continue. The authorities stopped the procedure in connection with their asylum seeking. One year later, the foreigners were brought back from the Netherlands according to the Dublin procedure. The authorities took into consideration the fact that the foreigners had declared their final destination to be the Netherlands. There was a possibility of their disappearance, and so they were taken into custody. The authorities provided additional protection following the results of the procedure, the foreigners were recognized as protected and they were provided services and support corresponding to their legal status. In response to their request, they were given travel documents, which they used to leave to unknown destination.

The Palestinian client tried to enter the country from Ukraine with false travel documents, as a result of which the authorities, following the legal directives, began proceedings and the client was taken into custody. His request for asylum was made only after he had bee taken into custody. The authorities considered his request and made the decision that the conditions were not given for him to be recognized as a refugee. At the same time, the authorities banned the possibility of sending him back. The foreigner asked for legal redress at the court.

Following the end of the administrative procedure, the client was taken to a reception base which he left more than a year ago without valid documents, illegally, to an unknown destination.

These facts have underlined the experience that most of the asylum seekers who arrive to our country do not consider Hungary to be their final destination, not even if we provide them protection and support. It should also be mentioned that while almost all of the asylum seekers reach the country illegally, the authorities only find it necessary to limit their personal freedom in very few cases. Parliament will soon decide on a bill that aims to change the law on asylum seekers and on foreigners in harmony with the criteria expressed by the European Court of Human Rights in connection with the custody of asylum seekers. As a result, the decision will provide coherence between the two legal fields.

(Ministry of Interior)