Author
There is a specialised unit within the NDGAP which deals with asylum applications of vulnerable groups, namely the applications of unaccompanied and separated children. The competent department is the Regional Directorate of Budapest and Pest County Asylum Unit. The employees (case officers) of the unit have special knowledge on UaSCa, which enables them to conduct the hearings and make the decision in accordance with their special situation. They receive training on how to handle such cases, but there is no specific entry requirement they must meet.
According to the NDGAP,[1] in 2021, 2022 and 2023 two modules of the EASO Training Curriculum were available in Hungarian at the authority, entitled ‘Personal interview of vulnerable persons’ and ‘Personal interview of children’.
Based on the experience of HHC lawyers, it is mostly their individual sense of empathy, rather than professional support and training, that case officers make use of when interviewing UaSCs . Personal discussions with case officers shed light on the fact that being assigned to the cases of unaccompanied minors mostly happens without providing trainings on the specific legal provisions applicable in the cases of children or child friendly techniques to be used.
Adequate support during the interview
The NDGAP is obliged to conduct an individual examination of the asylum claim by examining ‘[t]he social standing, personal circumstances, gender and age of the person […] to establish whether the acts which have been or could be committed against the person applying for recognition qualify as persecution or serious harm.’[2] Persons making gender-based applications have the right to have their case considered by an asylum officer of the same sex if they so request,[3] and this right is respected in practice. Since 2018, the law also explicitly provides this for persons with claims based on gender identity.[4]
There is a possibility to use sign language interpretation besides regular interpretation, as the costs of both are covered by the NDGAP.[5] If the asylum seeker is not able to write, this fact and their statement shall be included in the minutes.[6]
In case the applicant cannot be interviewed due to being unfit to be heard, the NDGAP may decide not to carry out a personal interview. If in doubt about the asylum seeker’s fitness, the determining authority will seek the opinion of a doctor or psychologist. If the doctor confirms this, the asylum applicant can be given an opportunity to make a written statement or the applicant’s family members can be interviewed.[7]
If the NDGAP has already obtained information about the fact that the asylum seeker is a survivor of ill-treatment or displays signs of trauma, the asylum seeker is interviewed by a specifically trained case officer. However, since there is no formal mechanism to identify these asylum seekers, there is a risk that such an applicant is heard by a case officer who is not appropriately trained. If the applicant does not feel fit to be interviewed, the interview can be postponed, although the NDGAP can reject a request for postponement, if the postponement would prevent the NDGAP from taking its decision within the procedural deadline foreseen in the law. Still, these requests are generally accepted in practice. The NDGAP can also give permission for a family member or a psychologist to be present at the hearing, which has happened in the past.[8]
However, it has also happened that unaccompanied minors, victims of torture or traumatised asylum seekers were not interviewed in a proper room with suitable conditions for such interviews. Due to the lack of space, and due to organisational shortcomings by the former IAO and NDGAP, the interviews sometimes take place in a room where there are other case officers. One interview room is stationed behind a front desk used by the Police. This means that vulnerable asylum seekers, among whom UaSCs have to go into their interview right before the Police, whose presence and physical proximity they may feel to be intimidating.[9]
Amendments that entered into force on 1 January 2018 describe detailed procedural safeguards for interviewing children. These include the requirement for the asylum authority to conduct the asylum interview in an understandable manner and by taking into account the age, maturity, and the cultural and gender particularities of the child. This includes a child-friendly interview room for children below the age of 14. Any subsequent interview needs to be conducted by the same case officer in case the child needs to be heard. Finally, case officers interviewing children must possess the necessary knowledge on interviewing children.[10]
In 2022, the HHC lawyer reported that in a case of a homosexual Bangladeshi asylum-seeker (later granted refugee status), the case officer had questions which did not consider the applicant’s vulnerability and can be regarded as intrusive and had no relevancy regarding the applicant’s reasons for claiming asylum. The applicant was asked for example: ‘Do you think that sexual relationships entail emotional attachment too?’, ‘How many partners did you have as a homosexual person?’, ‘What did your mother think of you after you did things which are done by girls?’, “What does the notion of ‘family’ mean to you?” etc.
Exemption from special procedures
There is no exemption of vulnerable groups from accelerated procedures.
Prior to March 2017, the airport procedure and procedure in the transit zones could not be applied in case of vulnerable asylum seekers.[11] In practice, only asylum seekers with physically visible special needs (pregnant women, families) were exempted from the border procedure.[12] Since March 2017, border procedures are no longer applied, due to the state of crisis caused by ‘mass migration’. Until 21 May 2020, when the transit zones were closed, the procedure in the transit zones was a regular procedure and all asylum seekers had to remain in the transit zone until the end of the procedure. The only exception were UaSCs below the age of 14.
For UaSCs, the asylum authorities as a general rule have to trace the person responsible for the child, except if it is presumed that there is a conflict or if the tracing is not justified in light of the minor’s best interests.[13] The determining authority may ask assistance in the family tracing from other member states, third countries, UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and other international organisations engaged in supporting refugees. Practice shows, however, that this tracing is not carried out in practice by the former IAO, and now the NDGAP.
[1] Information provided by NDGAP on 7 February 2022, 13 February 2023 and 19 February 2024.
[2] Section 90 Asylum Decree.
[3] Section 66(3) Asylum Decree.
[4] Section 66(3a) Asylum Decree.
[5] Section 36(7) Asylum Act.
[6] Section 62(2) Asylum Decree.
[7] Section 43(2) Asylum Act and Sections 77(1) and (2) Asylum Decree.
[8] Practice-based observation of the HHC.
[9] Practice-based observation of the HHC.
[10] Section 74 Asylum Decree.
[11] Sections 71/A(7) and 72(6) Asylum Act.
[12] ECRE, Crossing Boundaries. The new asylum procedure at the border and restrictions to accessing protection in Hungary, October 2015, available at: https://bit.ly/41imiB7, 17.
[13] Section 4 Asylum Decree.