Cessation and review of protection status


Country Report: Cessation and review of protection status Last updated: 15/04/21


Hungarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

Criteria for cessation and revocation

The Asylum Act rules the grounds for cessation of status and the revocation of the recognition under the same Section.[1] Section 11(1) provides that refugee status shall cease if (i) the refugee acquires Hungarian nationality or (ii) recognition as refugee is revoked by the refugee authority. There are several grounds of revocation determined in the law as follows:[2]

  • The refugee has voluntarily re-availed him or herself of the protection of the country of his or her nationality;
  • The refugee has voluntarily re-acquired his or her lost nationality;
  • The refugee has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality;
  • The refugee has voluntarily re-established him or herself in the country which he or she had left or outside which he or she had remained owing to fear of persecution;
  • The circumstances in connection with which he or she has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, subject to the exception of a well-founded fear arising from past persecution;[3]
  • The refugee waives the legal status of refugee in writing;
  • The refugee was recognised in spite of the existence of the reasons for exclusion referred to in Section 8(1) of the Asylum Act or such a reason for exclusion is established against him/her;
  • The conditions for recognition did not exist at the time of the adoption of the decision on his/her recognition;
  • the refugee has misled the authorities during the asylum procedure by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents, provided that it had a decisive impact on the decision for the granting of refugee status.

Furthermore, the status of the refugee shall be withdrawn if the refugee is subject to the grounds for exclusion under Section 8(5) (see detailed in section on Withdrawal of protection status).

The conditions for the cessation of subsidiary protection status are mainly the same as those concerning refugee status with the exception that subsidiary protection shall also be withdrawn if the person is considered to be a risk for national security of Hungary.[4]

Procedures and guarantees

According to the Asylum Act, the determining authority shall examine the compliance with the conditions for refugee status and subsidiary protection at a minimum three-years interval.[5] NDGAP shall also examine compliance with the conditions for refugee status or subsidiary protection if his or her extradition was requested.[6]

The review of the international protection status is to be governed by the general rules of the asylum procedure (set out in Chapter VII of the Asylum Act), and Sections 57-68 of the Asylum Act.[7] The procedure shall be conducted within 60 days.[8]

Proceedings for the withdrawal of refugee status or subsidiary protection are opened ex officio.[9] The rules of the general asylum procedure shall be applied during the withdrawal proceedings.[10] The NDGAP shall interview the person holding international protection status and in 60 days decide if the conditions of refugee status or subsidiary protection are still applicable. [11] If there is no ground for the revocation of the status, the proceedings shall be terminated. [12]

The resolution on the withdrawal of recognition of refugee status or subsidiary protection may be subject to judicial review.[13] The petition for judicial review shall be submitted to the refugee authority within 8 days following the date of delivery of the decision.[14] The petition for judicial review shall be decided by the court, within 60 days following the receipt of the petition, in contentious proceedings. The judicial review shall provide for a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law.[15] The court may not overturn the decision of the NDGAP, but it shall abolish the decision it finds unlawful and, if necessary, shall order the refugee authority to reopen the case. If the court annuls the decision without ordering the asylum authority to conduct a new procedure, the review procedure is closed and the status of the beneficiary of international protection is maintained. As of 1 July 2020, against the court’s decision adopted in conclusion of the proceedings might be requested a review before the Curia (as an extra-judicial remedy).[16]

In the last years, the HHC experienced that there have been many cases where Afghan beneficiaries of subsidiary protection did not have their status renewed after 3 years because the asylum authority considered their return to Afghanistan safe. In these cases, the authority systematically established either the city of Kabul or the province of Balkh as an internal protection alternative for Afghans whose region of origin is struggling with instability, despite of the deteriorating situation of both destinations reported by different sources and the lack of family links or sufficient means of subsistence. The problem regarding Kabul as an internal protection alternative (IPA) persisted in 2020, as well as Damascus as an IPA was applied regarding Syrians with subsidiary protection.

As for re-availment of protection of the refugee’s country of origin, a report of EMN published in November 2019[17] states that “any trip to the country of origin could be considered to provide sufficient reason to presume that the individual had re-availed him/herself of the protection of his/her country of origin.” The asylum authority furthermore considers any type of contact with authorities of the country of origin as re-availment of protection of the country of origin. According to the report, when Hungarian authorities become aware of the contact, this would automatically lead to cessation of refugee protection.

Contrary to 2019, the HHC is aware of one case from 2020 where the status of a refugee granted in 1998 was not revoked on the motion of the NDGAP as a result of the procedure. The authority initiated the revocation in line with the assessment that the circumstances based on which the status was granted have ceased. However, during the procedure the applicant provided sufficient proof to justify his further need for protection.




[1]        Sections 11 and 18 Asylum Act.

[2]        Section 11(2) Asylum Act.

[3]        Section 11(4) Asylum Act.

[4]        Section 18(2) (g) Asylum Act.

[5]        Sections 75/A(1) and (2) and 14(1)(2) Asylum Act.

[6]        Section 7/A (2) Asylum Act.

[7]        Section 75/A(1) Asylum Act.

[8]        Section 75/A(2) Asylum Act.

[9]        Section 72/A(1) Asylum Act.

[10]       Section 72/A(2) Asylum Act.

[11]       Section 72/A (3) Asylum Act.

[12]       Section 74 (1) Asylum Act.

[13]       Section 75(1) Asylum Act.

[14]       Section 75(2) Asylum Act.

[15]       Section 75(3) Asylum Act.

[16]       Section 75(5) Asylum Act.

[17]       European Migration Network, Beneficiaries of International Protection Travelling to and Contacting Authorities of their Country of Origin, November 2019, available at http://bit.ly/2OIk0Y3.

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