Languages Archives: Hungarian

10.K.27.051/2018/5. National Court Decision (2018. February 7th)

On 05/09/2022 in

The case concerns two siblings, an afghan national with a legally accompanied minor who submitted asylum applications on October 24^th 2017. The asylum authority suspended their procedure based on the information they gathered from the EURODAC system and the Dublin Regulation. Eventually the authority proceeded with an inquiry towards the Bulgarian authorities to determine that they are responsible to conduct the asylum procedure however, the Bulgarian authorities refused to do so, since they registered both asylum seekers as minors. The Hungarian asylum authority then conducted a medical examination of the applicants and determined that one of the applicants was of legal age. Thus, they contacted the Bulgarian authorities again to which they recognized their responsibility to conduct the asylum application procedure. The applicants requested a review procedure before a national court against the order in which the Hungarian authority determined the responsibility of the Bulgarian authorities. The court annulled the decision and ordered the asylum authority to examine the applications on their merits. Although the applicants did not contest the accommodation order of the asylum authority, the court highlighted that based on the asylum procedures directive an applicant may only reside in the transit zone for a period of four weeks [Article 31(8), Article 43(2)] which was violated since the applicants should have been granted entry to Hungary.

Source: PDF with the link

7.K.27.833/2017/22. National Court Decision (2018. January 11th)

On 05/09/2022 in

The case concerns a family from Pakistan (4 children) who submitted asylum applications on May 12^th 2017. The asylum authority rejected their application a second time on October 4^th. The applicants requested a review of the decision before a national court where they also contested the accommodation order of the authority (in order to get accommodation not within the transit zone). The court annulled decisions and ordered the authority to repeat its procedure. The court determined based on the asylum procedures directive that the procedure of the authority surpassed the so called reasonable time limit, since it lasted three months [Article 43(2) read in conjunction with Article 31(9)]. The court in this regard highlighted the fact that the applicants submitted asylum applications with their four minor children (the oldest of which was 8 years of age, while the youngest was less than 2 years of age at the time). The court also took into consideration that in a previous similar case the asylum authority decided to provide appropriate accommodation outside the transit zone (106-7-14102/86/2017-M Decision on December 8^th 2017.). Furthermore, since the contested decisions were adopted in a repeat procedure the court stated that the asylum authority had no right to designate accommodation in the transit zone. The court expressly ordered the asylum authority to provide the applicants appropriate accommodation which does not result in the deprivation of their liberty and does not violate the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court explicitly excluded the transit zone for accommodation (see p. 10. of the decision).

Source: PDF with the file

11.K.27.085/2018/9. National Court Decision (2018. February 23rd)

On 05/09/2022 in

The case concerns a family from Iraq (7 children) who submitted asylum applications on December 18^th 2017. The asylum authority based on the Dublin Regulation [Article 25(2)] determined that Bulgaria shall be responsible to conduct the asylum procedure. The applicants requested a review of the decision before a national court where they also contested the accommodation order of the authority. The applicants claimed that for the mental health of their children it is best if they were accommodated in an open campground (instead of the transit zone) and have access to a doctor. The court annulled the decisions and ordered the asylum authority to repeat its procedure considering that the applicants’ three month long stay in Serbia proved to be true. The court also reinstated that an applicant may only reside in the transit zone for a period of four weeks based on the asylum procedures directive [Article 43(2)]. The court expressly ordered the asylum authority to provide the applicants appropriate accommodation which does not result in the deprivation of their liberty and does not violate the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court explicitly excluded the transit zone for accommodation. In its decision the court took into consideration that the applicants’ submitted their asylum applications with their minor children (the youngest of which was only 4 years of age) (see p. 8. of the decision).

Source: PDF with the case

6.K.27.060/2018/8. National Court Decision (2018. March 1st)

On 05/09/2022 in

The case concerns a married couple from Iraq who submitted asylum applications on July 10. 2017. The asylum authority rejected their application and expelled them to Iraq. The applicants requested a review of the decision before a national court which subsequently annulled it and ordered the asylum authority to repeat its procedure. However, the authority rejected the applicants’ claim again to which an action was brought. In this case the applicants also separately contested the fact that they were provided accommodation in the so called transit zone for the duration of the procedure. The court annulled the contested decisions and reinstated that an applicant may only reside in the transit zone for a period of four weeks based on the asylum procedures directive [Article 43(2)]. The court also ordered the asylum authority to provide the applicants appropriate accommodation for the duration of the repeated procedure which does not result in the deprivation of their liberty and does not violate the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. The court explicitly excluded the transit zone for accommodation (see p. 15. of the decision). The asylum authority on the 2^nd of June 2018. decided on the applicants’ accommodation accordingly.

Source: PDF with the case