General

Author

Hungarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

Statistical information

Until 21 May 2020, detention was a frequent practice rather than an exceptional measure in Hungary, although most of asylum seekers were detained in the transit zones and not in officially recognised places of deprivation of liberty – asylum detention centres.^[1]

In 2021, 2 asylum seekers were detained and a prioritised procedure was conducted in their cases.^[2] A total of 23 people were detained during the Dublin procedure (Section 31/A(1) Asylum Act),^[3] but they were not asylum applicants in Hungary. For 2022, the NDGAP only provided the overall number of all ordered asylum detentions, which was 39 and claimed that they do not have data on how many persons detained in asylum detention were actually asylum seekers.^[4] The number 39 therefore contains also the number of persons detained during the Dublin procedure, but who were not asylum applicants in Hungary. The officially published NDGAP statistics show that there were 7 asylum seekers detained in asylum detention in 2022.^[5] In 2023, the NDGAP only provided the overall number of asylum detention orders, which was 36, but this number does not tell how many of persons detained actually applied for asylum in Hungary.^[6] The officially published NDGAP statistics show that there were 3 asylum seekers detained in asylum detention in 2023.^[7] In 2024, there were 4 asylum seekers detained in asylum detention and 83 persons who were detained for the purpose of outgoing Dublin transfer (not asylum seekers in Hungary).^[8]

Source: former IAO and NDGAP.

Compared to 2021, there was 10.8% increase in the use of asylum detention in 2022. Compared to 2022, there was 5.2% decrease in the use of asylum detention in 2023. Compared to 2023, there was 3.1% increase in the use of asylum detention in 2024.

In 2019, the vast majority of asylum seekers (433) were detained in the transit zones. Taken together, the number of applicants (together with the number of subsequent applicants) detained in transit zones and asylum detention made up 93.6% of the total number of asylum seekers. With the closure of the transit zone on 21 May 2020, the number of detained asylum seekers decreased compared to the previous years and only 18.8 % of asylum seekers were deprived of their liberty that year. In 2021, there were 2 asylum seekers detained out of 39 asylum-seekers total in Hungary, thus detainees only accounted for 5,1% of all applicants. In 2022 there were 7 asylum seekers detained out of 44 asylum-seekers total in Hungary, thus detainees accounted for 15,9% of all applicants.  In 2023, there were 3 asylum seekers detained out of 28 asylum-seekers[10] total in Hungary, thus detainees accounted for 10,7% of all applicants. In 2024, there were 4 asylum seekers detained out of 29 asylum-seekers^[11] total in Hungary, thus detainees accounted for 13,8% of all applicants.

There were 2 asylum seekers detained in the Nyírbátor asylum detention centre in 2021. Kiskunhalas and Békéscsaba are closed. There were 7 asylum seekers detained in the Nyírbátor asylum detention centre in 2022, 3 persons were detained in Nyírbátor in 2023 and 4 in 2024.

There are also 3 immigration detention centres located in Budapest Airport Police Directorate, Nyírbátor, and Győr, which hold persons waiting to be deported. Asylum seekers who no longer have a right to remain on the territory are also held there.

Transit zones and international case law

From 28 March 2017 until 21 May 2020, all asylum seekers entering the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa were de facto detained, although the Hungarian authorities refused to recognise that this is detention.

On 14 March 2017, the ECtHR issued a long-awaited judgment in the HHC-represented Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary case. The Court confirmed its established jurisprudence that confinement in the transit zones in Hungary amounted to unlawful and arbitrary detention and established a violation of Article 5(1), a violation of Article 5(4) and a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention due to the lack of effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in the transit zone. The government appealed against the judgment and the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR^[12] did not agree with the Chamber’s unanimous decision concerning the nature of the placement in the transit zone and ruled that the applicants were not deprived of their liberty within the meaning of Article 5.

On 14 May 2020, the CJEU delivered its judgment in the joint cases of C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU, ruling among others that the automatic and indefinite placement of asylum-seekers in the transit zones at the Hungarian-Serbian border qualifies as unlawful detention. A week after the judgment was delivered, the government shut down the transit zones.

On 22 May 2020, the UN Woking Group Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) delivered its Opinion No. 22/2020 concerning Saman Ahmed Haman (Hungary) based on an individual complaint. The Working Group concluded that ‘the detention of Mr. Hamad was arbitrary and falls within category IV (when asylum seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy).’

On 17 December 2020, the CJEU issued a judgement in the infringement procedure case C-808/18 and ruled that Hungary by unlawfully detaining applicants for international protection in transit zones infringes upon EU law.^[13]

The HHC is of the opinion that the above CJEU judgment, the UN WGAD opinion and all the reports, statements, concluding observations and recommendations of various bodies, institutions, organisations and special procedures of both the Council of Europe and of the United Nations, show the existence of a ‘broad consensus’ as to the fact that placement in the transit zones in Hungary constitutes deprivation of liberty,^[14] which should be taken into account by the ECtHR when ruling on the pending cases concerning the transit zones.

On 2 March 2021, the ECtHR ruled in its judgment in R.R. and others v. Hungary^[15] that the confinement of an Iranian-Afghan family, including three minor children, to the Röszke transit zone constituted unlawful detention in violation of Article 5 and inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, it considered that the applicants did not have an avenue in which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided on promptly by a court, thereby violating Article 5(4) ECHR. In 2022, the Court reached similar finding, that placement in the transit zone constitutes detention, in several cases concerning families with children,^[16] single men,[17] single woman[18] and UaSC.[19] However, the Court did not consider that the placement in the transit zone constituted detention, seemingly because the placement period was either too short, or the applicants did not have any special vulnerabilities and declared the following cases inadmissible: appl. no. 74718/17 (single man, 26 days),[20] appl. no. 34883/17 (family with children, 40 days),^[21] appl. no. 37325/17 (family with children, 27 days),^[22] appl. no. 83/18 (single woman, 63 days), appl. no. 3047/18 (single man, 58 days), appl. no. 8172/18 (single man, 135 days), appl. no. 9203/18 (mother and a child, 37 days)[23] and appl. no. 30056/18 (UaSC, 46 days).[24]

^{[1] HHC, Statistical Brief Series on formal detention orders vs placement in the transit zones, 3 February 2019, available here.}

^{[2] Information provided by NDGAP on 7 February 2022.}

^{[3] Information provided by NDGAP on 7 February 2022.}

^{[4] Information provided by NDGAP on 13 February 2023 and 23 March 2023.}

^{[5] NDGAP, Statistics, available here.}

^{[6] Information provided by NDGAP on 19 February 2024.}

^{[7] NDGAP, Statistics, 6 May 2024, available here.}

^{[8] NDGAP, Statistics, 21 February 2025, available here.}

^{[9] It covers first-time and subsequent applicants together.}

^{[10] The number is based on statistics the HHC requested from the NDGAP on a quarterly basis. 28 is the sum of the numbers the NDGAP provided on a quarterly basis. According to the statistical report published by the NDGAP, however, this number is 31.}

^{[11] NDGAP, Statistics, 21 February 2025, available here.}

^{[12] ECtHR, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, Application No. 47287/15, Judgment of November 2019, EDAL, available here.}

^{[13] CJEU, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020, European Commission v Hungary, C-808/18, 17 December 2020, available here.}

^{[14] HHC, Placement in transit zones is a form of deprivation of liberty, Development of a broad consensus by international organisations that qualifies placement in the transit zones of Hungary as deprivation of liberty, after the legal amendments of March 2017, Information Update, 6 August 2020, available here.}

^{[15] ECtHR, R.R. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 36037/17, Judgment of 2 March 2021, available here.}

^{[16] ECtHR, M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 73860/17, Judgment of 24 February 2022, available here; A.A.A. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 37327/17, Judgment of  9 June 2022, available here; W.O. and Others, Application No. 36896/18, Judgment of 25 August 2022, available here and H.M. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 38967/17, Judgment of  2 June 2022, available here; K.K.S. v. Hungary, Application No. 32660/18, Judgement of 3 October 2023, available here; P.S. and A.M. v. Hungary, Application  no 53272/17, 5 October 2023, available here; M.A. and others v. Hungary, Application No. 58680/18, Judgement of 5 October 2023, available here; S.AB. and S.AR. v. Hungary, Application No. 17089/19, Judgment of 30 November 2023, available here; Z.L. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 13899/19, Judgement of 12 September 2024, available here and M.D.A. and Others v. Hungary, Application No. 16217/19, Judgement of 19 December 2024, available here.}

^{[17] ECtHR, O.Q. v. Hungary, Application No. 53528/19, Judgement of 5 October 2023, available here; H.L. v. Hungary, Application No. 37641/19, Judgement of 20 June 2024, available here; A.P. v. Hungary, Application No. 18581/19, Judgement of 3 October 2024, available here.}

^{[18] ECtHR, S.H. v. Hungary, Application No. 47321/19, Judgement of 20 June 2024, available here.}

^{[19] ECtHR, M. H. v. Hungary, Application No. 652/18, Judgement of 3 October 2024, available here.}

^{[20] ECtHR, H.K. v. Hungary, Application No. 74718/17, Decision of 19 March 2020.}

^{[21] ECtHR, A.S. and others v. Hungary, Application No. 34883/17, Decision of 9 June 2022, available here.}

^{[22] ECtHR, N.A. and others v. Hungary, Application No. 37325/17, Decision of 24 February 2022, available here.}

^{[23] ECtHR, F.O. and others v. Hungary, Application No. 9203/18, Decision of 20 June 2024, available here.}

^{[24] ECtHR, Z.A. v. Hungary, Application No. 30056/18, Decision of 3 October 2024, available here.}