Alternatives to detention

Hungary

Country Report: Alternatives to detention Last updated: 19/05/26

Author

Hungarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

Alternatives to detention, called ‘measures ensuring availability’, are available in the form of:

  • Bail;[1]
  • Designated place of stay;[2]and
  • Periodic reporting obligations.[3]

Asylum detention may only be ordered based on an assessment of the individual’s circumstances and if its purpose cannot be achieved by applying less coercive alternatives to detention. However, the HHC’s experience shows that detention orders lacked individual assessments and alternatives were not properly and automatically examined. Decisions ordering and upholding asylum detention were schematic, lacked individualised reasoning regarding the lawfulness and proportionality of detention, and failed to consider the individual circumstances (including vulnerabilities) of the person concerned. The necessity and proportionality tests were not used. The orders only stated that alternatives are not possible in a concrete case, but there is no explanation as to why.[4] According to the Supreme Court (Kúria) opinion,[5] contrary to the current practice, alternatives must be considered not only during initial, but also in subsequent decisions on extension.

The O.M. v. Hungary[6] ECtHR case of 5 July 2016 also established that the detention order of a vulnerable asylum seeker was not sufficiently individualised.

Alternatives were applied as follows between 2016 and 2020 (the NDGAP did not provide the requested data between 2021 and 2024, claiming no relevant statistics are available):[7] In 2025, the NDGAP reported that there was no bail ordered and that they do not have any statistics on other forms of alternative measures.[8]

 

 

 

[1] Sections 2(lc) Asylum Act.

[2]  Section 2(lb) Asylum Act.

[3] Section 2(la) Asylum Act.

[4] HHC, Information Note on asylum-seekers in detention and in Dublin procedures in Hungary, May 2014, available here, 6-7.

[5] The Asylum Working Group of the Supreme Court summary opinion, 13 October 2014, available here.

[6]  ECtHR, O.M. v. Hungary, Application No.  9912/15, judgment of 5 July 2016, available here.

[7] Information provided by the NDGAP on 7 February 2022 and 20 February 2024.

[8] Information provided by NDGAP on 9 March 2026.

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation